Poverty

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking in response to the Make Poverty History campaign; and how they define poverty in that context.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government welcome the Make Poverty History campaign. The Government want to make progress on more resources for aid, debt relief and fairer trade. We define poverty in terms of the millennium development goals, particularly halving the proportion of people living below a dollar a day by 2015. Africa is being left behind. During our G8 presidency we intend to agree a comprehensive action plan for Africa's development.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is a great deal of positive feeling about the way in which the Government have made development issues central to the political agenda? Does she agree that the Commission for Africa chaired by the Prime Minister made the point that poverty is not only to be assessed in terms of sickness, shelter and all the other indices but also in terms of exclusion from political influence in the world? Is there not a major task to be tackled in ensuring that at a time when we talk about democracy and its importance in the world we make the international institutions of the UN, and other international institutions, more accountable to the poor of the world and enable them to be fuller stakeholders in establishing the agendas of those institutions?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. As regards the point about the international institutions, my noble friend will know that the Secretary-General of the UN has been looking at that matter and has recently published a report. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government have warmly welcomed that report and have published our own consultation document with respect to some of the proposals.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the PNQ yesterday on Zimbabwe and the important Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House not agree that the two linchpins in the war on poverty promoted by the Africa commission are good governance and fighting corruption? What action are Her Majesty's Government taking against their chosen handpicked members of the Africa commission who have publicly supported the rife corruption and dictatorship of Mugabe in his recent fixed elections?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that we see the three elements at the heart of these initiatives as being human rights, security and development, although I agree with the noble Baroness that good governance and fighting corruption are important elements of that. My noble friend Lady Symons made it absolutely clear that we shall continue to work with our African partners with respect to Zimbabwe. We have a different view regarding the way that we think the international community should handle Zimbabwe. However, a number of African governments and leaders share our concern as regards their initial view on the damage that is being done to the continent.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, over the years there have been many projects to relieve poverty in the world. We remember the water decade and how that was intended to bring fresh, pure drinking water to every home in the world. Those were dreams that faded and hopes that were never realised. What mechanism have the Government in place to ensure that the pledges and hopes of the Make Poverty History campaign are monitored, and that their successes—I hope, more than their failures—are reported to us?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government see it as our responsibility to report on the commitments and pledges that we have made rather than on the commitments and pledges made by the Make Poverty History campaign. Members of that campaign will themselves report on the progress that they make as a coalition in challenging governments globally to meet those concerns. The noble Lord will know that this Government have taken a different approach. We want to work in partnership with developing country governments. We want there to be a very clear recognition of rights and responsibilities on both sides. We monitor progress not only against the commitments that we have made but also against the commitments that developing countries have made.

Lord Rea: My Lords, now that the United States appears to have turned down the chance to co-operate with us in creating the International Finance Facility which was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer three months ago, will the Government try to work with other G8 countries, and other countries if they can, to match that fund of $50 billion? My noble friend will be aware that that $50 billion matches the amount that would be raised if all countries reached the figure of 0.7 per cent of GDP in development assistance—a sum which is essential if we are to reach the millennium goals.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the $50 billion is the sum that we think is required if the world community is to achieve the millennium development goals by 2015. As regards the IFF and the G8, France, Germany and Italy have already signalled their support. My noble friend will know that Sweden has also signalled its support. This is about increasing aid volume in addition to countries moving towards the figure of 0.7 per cent of GDP in development assistance. We are still hoping that the United States Government will come on board. I am not sure where my noble friend heard that the proposals had been turned down by the United States Government; that is not my understanding. We are still hoping that they will come on board.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I congratulate the Government's general intent vis-à-vis poverty in Africa in particular. Will the noble Baroness expand on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in respect of corruption? It is such a deep, fundamental problem in large parts of Africa that it aborts improvements in governments and development. What is the Government's response to the recent OECD report on corruption, which had some extremely critical things to say about this country and our complete failure to date to bring one prosecution under the extra-territoriality provisions?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that in addition to the OECD report, the Commission for Africa report looked at the issue of corruption and the role of developed countries in terms of issues such as the return of stolen assets. We are working with developing country governments in putting anti-corruption mechanisms in place and on reform of the public service. We are also looking at what more we can do about corruption—not just the UK Government but developed country governments more generally—and we are looking at the business sector through the extractive industries initiative.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, returning to the subject of the IFF and the answer given by the noble Baroness, does she agree that for the very poorest in the world the Chancellor of the Exchequer is some kind of conjuror waiting for something to come out of the hat; and that is the International Finance Facility? When will the Government recognise that for the poor there is nothing in the hat, and this is turning into a confidence trick?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl. A series of goals were agreed by the international community in 2000, including halving world poverty by 2015. We will not meet those goals, particularly on the continent of Africa, without more resources and aid going in or without dealing with issues such as trade and debt relief. The majority of countries have not reached 0.7 per cent of GNI; in fact only four countries have reached 0.7 per cent. To enable us to put in more resources we must find another way of doing that. That is precisely what the IFF is there to do.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister focus her attention on the question of poverty in the Pacific rim countries? Is she now in a position, in the last days of this Government, to indicate whether the Prime Minister's promise to match the funding raised by the British people for the victims of the tsunami and those people who are suffering considerable poverty as a result will be met before this Parliament is finally dissolved?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have addressed this question before for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is being rather hopeful in talking about the last days of this Government. I made it absolutely clear that we had made a commitment with respect to the immediate humanitarian needs caused by the tsunami that we would allocate additional funding for long-term development once the needs assessment from the World Bank came in. We looked at that, and we made our pledges in relation to that. There is no point making a pledge until we know what the money will be spent on.

Sugar Beet

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assurances they can offer British sugar beet growers that they will not be unfairly discriminated against in the forthcoming reform of European Union sugar policy.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the European Commission is not now expected to put forward formal legislative proposals on reform of the sugar regime before June. That is following the outcome of the WTO appeal panel. In determining the UK negotiating position, we will be looking for measures that ensure fair treatment for all concerned, including UK beet producers and our traditional ACP sugar suppliers, as well as consumers and taxpayers.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Given that the UK sugar beet growers are among the most efficient in the EU and make a valuable contribution to the rural economy, and bearing in mind the potential for ministerial discretion in the Commission's White Paper for implementing partial compensation for cuts in price, will the Government strive to ensure that any quota reductions are targeted at countries producing exportable surplus and take steps to guarantee that the growing of sugar beet in the UK continues to be viable?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Commission's White Paper is by no means necessarily the same as what the Commission's propositions will be, which will also have to take into account the findings of the WTO appeal panel by other sugar-producing nations against the current EU regime. It will not be an attainable negotiating target, with the majority of EU countries producing sugar beet, to have only those countries that produce an exportable surplus subject to quota reduction. There will be some sophisticated negotiations about that, and we will seek to protect UK sugar beet producers as far as possible, but I do not think that some of the simplistic formulae that are being produced by the industry are negotiable.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that there is a viable alternative for our sugar beet producers in such things as providing bioethanol for road transport fuels?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are very much in favour of developing biofuels of all sorts, including bioethanol, which among other feedstocks could use sugar beet. The House will know that we are already under discussion about whether we could introduce a road transport renewables obligation, which would help to kick-start a serious market in biofuels for transport. Sugar beet producers, among others, should benefit from that.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the sugar regime is perhaps one of the most iniquitous aspects of the common agricultural policy? Maintaining a totally artificial price for European producers works to the advantage of some European producers and to the disadvantage of developing world producers. In this case, the slogan ought to be, "The more radical reform, the better".

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree. The sugar regime has been the least reformed of all the CAP regimes. The bulk of them have now been reformed as a result of the negotiations two years ago, and the reforms are about to be put into practice. Sugar has to become part of that, and it is no longer tenable for us to maintain a European sugar price that is three times the world level. That leads not only to countries being excluded from the European market, but to European surplus being dumped, again to the detriment of the third world.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in the negotiations on the reform of the sugar regime, will the Government follow up on the need for quota trading within Europe and, if so, on what timetable? When will it be established?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, all questions of timetable are clearly subject to negotiations. The UK Government would like to see tradability of quotas, if the quota regime exists at all. Even better, we would like to see the end of quotas, so that the most efficient producers—those include many of the British producers—would survive in Europe while giving greater access to the sugar industries of the third world.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that we are talking about the survival of the sugar beet industry in the United Kingdom, as well as being fair to the ACP countries. What percentage drop in quota in the price of sugar do the Government believe could result in a sustainable sugar beet industry in the UK and remain fair for the ACP countries? Some commentators have said that a level at about half of that proposed by the Commission would achieve that objective. Are the Government working towards that?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, we are not working towards that figure. As I said, the European price is three times the world price. The Commission White Paper will propose a cut of 33 per cent, which would allow the most efficient parts of the European sugar beet industry to survive, as well as the most efficient suppliers from ACP and other least developed countries.
	Given that we have slightly more time, I should say that I intended to point out that today is the birthday of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. He is looking very sprightly, and I am glad to see him being part of the debate. I apologise for not reacting more quickly.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his commitment to the interests of the ACP producers will be particularly welcomed in the Caribbean? Can he give an assurance that his department will talk to governments such as that of Jamaica—8 per cent of the population there is dependent directly or indirectly on sugar cane growing—and assist them in their wishes to help with the transition of the growers into future activities? If the sugar cane industry collapses in such a country, the social unrest will be inconceivable.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, colleagues in DfID and I have been talking for some time to Jamaica and other Caribbean and ACP producers. The Commission has proposed an outline action plan for helping adaptation in those parts of traditional suppliers where the viability of the industry needs to be upgraded substantially, or where they need to adapt to other crops. The kind of catastrophe to which my noble friend refers could occur in some of our most loyal and traditional suppliers otherwise.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not be better for farmers in this country, and farmers and consumers throughout the world, if we abolished the CAP and repatriated agriculture to the individual countries?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, significantly, the recent deal on most of the regimes in the CAP repatriates policy to the UK or member states, by moving away from production-related subsidies that are determined in great detail and with great bureaucratic difficulties in Brussels and towards giving farmers a single-farm payment against which they decide which crop to grow or animals to rear. Regrettably, sugar is not yet part of that regime. It is part of the UK Government's objective to make it so.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, from the Minister's earlier answer with regard to the ACP countries, am I to understand that they will be dealt with in a different way from countries such as Brazil? Unless they are, they will certainly be the losers compared with Brazil and other countries that are considered less developed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is an agreement for preferential access for ACP countries. There is also an agreement in everything but arms, covering sugar, which would extend that to other less developed countries but not to countries such as Brazil. Only if there were complete liberalisation would Brazil sweep the market. That would be subject to a negotiation within the WTO that has not occurred and is unlikely to occur as part of the reform of the sugar process. There will be changes in the supply system from third world countries, but we should maximise the degree to which we can support our traditional suppliers in that area and other less developed and sophisticated producers.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the tenor of the Minister's answers has been that, in future, we will grow less sugar beet for sugar in this country. Is there not another reason why that should take place—that sugar itself is not always a healthy part of diets? If a lot less sugar were consumed in this country, its population would be a great deal healthier.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that that view has universal consent in this House. There is something in what the noble Lord says. However, it depends what you use sugar for and what food you put sugar on and in. I am sure that he is well versed in those nutritional guidelines and I hope that other Members of the House follow his good example, but I do not think that we can achieve those nutritional objectives by fiddling with the sugar regime.

EU Constitutional Treaty

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why in implementing the proposed European Union constitutional treaty they intend the treaty's provisions for parliamentary control of the passerelle procedure to be exercised by the House of Commons alone.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Article IV-444 asks national parliaments for a single view on whether to support a particular change in the voting rules. Although it may often be the case that your Lordships' House and the Commons agree, that will not invariably be true. In that event, the Government take the view that it is for the elected House to make the final judgment.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not sure that that is good enough. The passerelle clause will enable, for example, British taxation policy to be moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting without any further treaty change, which would sweep away the Government's cherished red lines. That is one of the most controversial proposals in the new EU constitution, so is it not an important safeguard that that use of the passerelle clause be subject to the approval of all 25 national parliaments? Why, therefore, are the Government downgrading the British Parliament into a single Chamber? Do they recognise that, if they seek to disenfranchise the House of Lords, they need a specific constitutional Bill to do so rather than slipping it in in an underhand way in the European Union Bill?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will be astonished to hear that I completely reject the idea that we have slipped it in in an underhand way in the European constitution Bill. He will know that that Bill will arrive in your Lordships' House, and that there will be ample opportunity to debate the Government's proposal in Clause 2 to pursue the passerelle agreement in that way.
	The noble Lord might also recognise that there has been a huge victory in the constitution in what Britain has been able to achieve by determining that the incredibly important issues of moving from unanimity to qualified majority or co-decision must be agreed by 25 parliaments—parliaments of sovereign nations. Noble Lords have felt passionately about that; it is to be applauded. We have addressed the question put to us of how to give a single view. That is our proposal in the Bill.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend reconsider her answer and, instead of using the passerelle clause, allow the whole of Parliament to decide rather than bothering with a referendum? After all, some Members of Parliament—at least, there might be a few in your Lordships' House—might read the 511 pages of the treaty. That would save the public a lot of trouble in reading the document before they decided on how they would vote. If she disagrees with that, can we have an assurance that the document—it costs £47—will be issued to every elector before any referendum, together with the 493 pages of Foreign and Commonwealth Office commentary? Perhaps that will make her appreciate how much better it would be not to bother with the referendum.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that the Foreign Office document is exquisite—all 493 pages of it.

A Noble Lord: It is.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My noble friend agrees with that and I am sure that noble Lords will have read most, if not all, of it. We are fully committed to a referendum; we have made that clear. It is important that the people of this country debate the issues, not least due to the misinformation that has been put around about the treaty. Whether they read all the document or not—I am not sure that sending it to every household would meet peoples' requirements—we want to ensure that there is an opportunity to understand what a good treaty this is, how important it is and what a good job Britain has done.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps we may return to the Question. I am not in the habit of leaking the deliberations of the European Union Select Committee, but we looked closely yesterday at Clause 2 of the European Union Bill. We came to the unanimous conclusion that an initiative for a decision under Article IV-444 should have the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Will the Government take the time that is now available to them before the Bill comes to the House to reflect very carefully on that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating the work of the committee. The Government have already reflected carefully on the provision. As noble Lords will recognise, we are charged with finding a way to ensure that a single view comes from our Parliament—which is unique within the 25 nations, in terms of the make-up of the two Houses.
	We have proposed in the Bill that your Lordships' House would be asked for its opinion, but that the final decision would rest with the elected Chamber. Noble Lords, as I have indicated, will have many opportunities during the passage of that Bill to debate the question and to make their views known both to Ministers in this House and in another place.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, of course I hope that fairly soon we will have a different government, so that none of this may arise. However, if, by some mischance, the noble Baroness's colleagues are still in office when the Bill comes forward again, would it not be reasonable to convey to her colleagues that we have a bicameral, not a unicameral, system and that your Lordships' House should not be treated as a second-rate think tank to be consulted on these matters? Should not the Bill go through the proper processes of full approval by both Chambers of our Parliament?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise that that is the noble Lord's view. My view is that the will of the people will be that we will, indeed, be the Government, come 5 May, and that we will be debating these important issues in your Lordships' House—due to the importance of our role within Europe and the importance of ratifying this treaty. I have made it clear in all of my answers that there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to debate the Government's proposal.
	I reiterate that we are a unique bicameral institution. Twelve member states have bicameral parliaments, but none has a wholly unelected Chamber, such as ours. We must ensure that we put forward a single view. Our proposal is in the Bill, it will come to your Lordships' House, it will be debated and I am sure that your Lordships will make their views well known. We all look forward to those debates.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when my noble colleague and friend Lord McNally saw this Question on the passerelle procedure, with the strength of the excellent French that he learnt at school, he asked why the European Union was so concerned about umbrellas?
	In view of the excellent report from another place, published only a few weeks ago about strengthening links between the two Houses in the scrutiny of European business and the potential establishment of a parliamentary European committee, does the Minister not agree that this is another area in which the two Houses should be working together, rather than the Commons pursuing this on its own and leaving the Lords, which does excellent and detailed work on European scrutiny, out of the picture?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord put his noble friend right on parapluie.
	It is important that the two Houses work together. We are describing an approach on how we would achieve that. I am sure that the noble Lord will make his views well known during the passage of the Bill. We believe that our proposal does give your Lordships' House the opportunity to make its views well known and I hope that we will reach agreement, either through the usual channels or through our discussions and debates. On the questions of secondary legislation, the powers of your Lordships' House and so on, we have said that if we are to deal with these issues, it must, in the end, be another place that makes the final decision.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of my noble friend Lord Grenfell's Select Committee, does the Minister realise that she has made a quite remarkable statement? She rests her case on the fact that the Government are being asked for a single opinion. Why did the Government not fight against that? What are the precedents for treating us as a unicameral parliament? As far as I know there is none. If this proposal is to be passed, it will be a very substantial change in the nature of parliament at Westminster.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's strength of feeling, but the matter is straight forward. Twenty-five nation states are now involved in the European Union. It is important that if decisions are to be made on changing the voting system, 25 parliaments should make the decision, but not 25 parliaments plus 12 second Houses. One has to obtain 25 nation-state views. If, in your Lordships' House and another place, an agreed view comes forward, these issues will not arise.
	However, the noble Lord will know well that, when we deal with secondary legislation, your Lordships' House can put forward its view and the Government will respond and listen—but at the end of the day, we could end up in a position where we had two different views. It is eminently possible for that to apply. It is the Government's view, put forward in the Bill, that it is important that one view comes forward, because one view, mixed with the other 24 views from 24 other parliaments, must prevail.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 41, 43 and 47

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the Session so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government the power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Orders 43 (Postponement and advancement of business) and 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in the context of the circumstances that have given rise to the business Motion, the Delegated Powers Committee met this morning and concluded that there was no way at all in which, in such fast-moving circumstances, it could continue to give advice to the House on amendments that are moved over the next two days and that, therefore, in the watches of the night, Members of your Lordships' House would not be able to rely on our customary vigilance.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 13 [Railway functions of Passenger Transport Executives]:

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 12, line 10, at end insert—
	"(1A) An Executive that has been consulted under subsection (1) in relation to a franchise agreement where the services to be provided under the agreement are or include services for the carriage of passengers by railways within the passenger transport area of that Executive may, before the expiry period of 60 days following the date on which that consultation began, make a statement to the Secretary of State specifying—
	(a) the services for the carriage of passengers by railway which the Passenger Transport Authority for the area in question considers it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within that area, so far as relating to the provision of services of the same description as those to be provided under the franchise agreement in question;
	(b) any minimum level of quality to which any services so specified are to be provided;
	(c) any requirements with respect to the fares to be charged to persons using any services so specified; and
	(d) any minimum level of quality with respect to the operation of any station within the area in question which may be required by any such franchise agreement.
	(1B) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A) the Secretary of State shall ensure that the services, and any minimum levels of quality or requirements with respect to fares, specified in that statement are provided for in any franchise agreement into which he may enter in respect of the services in which the Executive have an interest.
	(1C) The Secretary of State need not do anything under subsection (1B) if or to the extent that it would—
	(a) have an adverse effect on the provision of services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway (whether inside or outside the area in question); or
	(b) increase the amount of any expenditure of the Secretary of State in respect of railways under agreements or any other arrangements entered into with any franchise operator, any franchisee, or any servant, agent or independent contractor of a franchise operator or franchisee, and the Secretary of State considers that the Executive would not fund that increased expenditure."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I realise that this may not be of great interest to many people, but I think that the matter before us is extremely important.
	The amendment relates to the powers of the passenger transport executives, which were created in 1968 by a late and lamented Member of the House, Barbara Castle. Since that time, the passenger transport executives have been parties to agreements to provide train services in their areas. The aim of the amendment is to keep that arrangement in place. In the Railways Bill, the government are proposing that the passenger transport executives will lose their powers as co-signatories of franchise agreements, even though they are expected to be funders of the services involved.
	I cannot understand why the Government are protesting at the amendment. At first, when the PTEs were left out, we thought that that was an oversight, but it strikes me as an absolute contradiction for a government who have said that they are in favour of regional government and in favour of letting powers be exercised locally to take away from the bodies that they created the power to be co-signatories to an agreement to which they contribute financially.
	I have tried hard to deal with the objections raised in Grand Committee and on Report by the Minister; namely, that on one or two occasions passenger transport executives have delayed signatures for what could be described as political reasons. We have imported into the amendment the fact that the passenger transport executive authorities will, when the agreement is presented to them, have 60 days in which to be co-signatories.
	The PTEs believe that the powers are important because, if they are not co-signatories, their power will be taken away, and the franchisee will take little notice of them. They will cease to be, as it were, a material part of the agreement.
	I do not intend to delay the House long. The provision is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. I do not think I have ever had so many messages from people of every political opinion saying that something was wrong and that it needed to be changed. Unless we get a satisfactory answer from the Minister, it will be necessary to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have been involved in discussions with the Minister, and I am very grateful to him for that. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, in the amendment he has sought to meet the concerns of Ministers that the signatures to franchises could be delayed by PTEs getting difficult.
	Given the time that it has taken to award some franchises over the past three or four years, 60 days is not a long period to delay franchises. It is nothing; in fact, it is very short. The key is that at least it gives PTEs, which, after all, represent a local community on transport matters, a say in what happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, they often contribute to better services, improved rolling stock or whatever.
	The Government's agenda is to devolve power where possible, but here the Bill seems to be contrary to that—it is clawing everything back to the centre. It makes one think that, unless the service happens to be a commuter service into London, no one will take any interest in it, as that is the only service that civil servants use. I hope that that is not true; it would be a great misrepresentation of what is happening in this country.
	The other thing that I would like to dispel is a story that has been put around and mentioned by the Minister on a few occasions—that is, if PTEs are allowed to be signatories, the next stop will be the Mayor of London, Transport for London, the Greater London Authority or whatever. It should be clear to everyone that the Greater London Authority and Transport for London are not PTEs. Whatever one may think of what the Mayor and his organisations do in London—I think that they have done an extremely good job—this arrangement has absolutely nothing to do with them. Regional PTEs are at stake, and the amendment puts forward a good compromise that should have the support of the House. I fully support it.

Lord Snape: My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my continuing interest as an employee of the National Express Group. I am probably speaking in opposition to what the National Express Group believes. I have not discussed the matter with it, but I understand that ATOC, the umbrella organisation of train operating companies, takes the same view as Her Majesty's Government—that is, that passenger transport executives/authorities should not have a direct role so far as concerns franchising. I hope that it does not get me the sack from the group if I say that I disagree entirely with the view expressed by ATOC.
	Having heard my noble friend on the Front Bench reply to this and similar amendments in Grand Committee and at other stages of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, I understand the Government's point of view. I cannot see any justification for the measure, although of course it is inconvenient if people elected locally take exception to, or insist on, services that may or may not be provided in the area for which they are elected representatives or if their appointees—the passenger transport executives—administer those areas on their behalf. However, the fact is that it was a Labour government who created the passenger transport executives/authorities in the first place back in the 1960s. As I have said—I do not wish to go down the same road, or railway line, again—many of the local services that now exist around our major cities outside this great city are there because of the efforts, finance and dedication of local councillors who serve on passenger transport authorities and those whom they have appointed to run passenger transport executives.
	I see on the Cross Benches a former chairman of British Rail—the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I do not know his view on the matter but, as someone who had to lobby him on behalf of various organisations, I can understand that he, like members of the Government, occasionally felt that such lobbyists were a bit of a nuisance and that he should get on with the job of running the railway industry. I notice that he is far too polite to agree with me but, although he did not tell me so at the time, I suspect that he thought that about me and about some of the other people who lobbied him during his distinguished career as the chairman of the British Railways Board.
	The fact is that, although it is inconvenient, local democracy is worth supporting. As has just been said by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, it is surely inconceivable that a Labour Government who profess to believe in devolution and local decision-making should exclude those who have a direct responsibility for providing train services from any involvement in signing the franchises to provide those services in the first place.
	Even at this late hour, I urge my noble friend to reconsider the matter. I have not lobbied him myself because, after what I said the other day, I decided that he was bigger than me and that I had better not take that chance. I hope that he will bear in mind the depth of feeling among those of us who habitually bore your Lordships on such matters. We may well be boring your Lordships again on this occasion, but I hope that my noble friend will accede to the justice of the course that we are putting forward and agree about the issue of local democracy.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I gave my views on this amendment and others in the group when moving them on Report on 4 April. Thus I shall not detain the House at any length today.
	On Report, the myth that the Bill would speed up negotiations between franchisees and PTEs was exploded. In truth, it would considerably prolong them. Again and in sharp contrast to the pledge in last year's White Paper on devolving responsibilities to the PTEs, decision-making would, in fact, be centralised rather than devolved.
	I had hoped that on Report we would be told in full detail where the Government stand. Would they prefer to withdraw the Bill rather than have these amendments included? And, are the other parties determined not to allow the Bill to become law without them? We need to know in this debate exactly where all parties stand in advance of behind-the-scenes haggling on the Bill's future.
	Meanwhile, in the proceedings on the Bill in another place on 27 January, MPs from Greater Manchester tabled amendments to the same effect as those we are now debating. In doing so, they were reflecting serious public concern across the conurbation about the threat the Bill constitutes for local decision-making on public transport. All their amendments were unceremoniously guillotined. Therefore, Greater Manchester MPs will have no say on an issue of high importance to them unless these amendments are accepted and incorporated into the Bill when it returns to the House of Commons.
	What happened on 27 January explains succinctly and in stark terms the importance of the role of this House vis-à-vis the Bill. The case for the amendment is strong and I hope that my noble friend will today offer a reply that we can honourably commend to the PTEs.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, we supported the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, when he moved the amendment on Report, but we had some concerns, as some PTEs are better than others. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has taken on board our concerns and added Amendment No. 2 to the group, which means that PTEs cannot hold up any franchise agreements. There is a 60-day period. We believe that that is an important change and I thank the noble Lord for making it so that we can fully support the amendment. Quite frankly, I am somewhat baffled by the Minister's position. I thought that his party believed in improving local representation not in diminishing local rights.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who moved the amendment. He has given an example of precision, which I hope will be followed by all movers of amendments that we shall consider on this Bill and other Bills today.
	We have discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee and on Report and we are discussing the issue again today. I have had the benefit of meetings with Members of the House who are greatly concerned about the Bill. On this legislation we have come to a point of principle and we do not and cannot accept these amendments. That was made clear in the other place and it is my duty to reflect that position today for the reasons that I have sought to emphasise during previous discussions on these issues, but not because we disavow the role of the passenger transport executives. At times it seemed to be suggested that we wanted to abolish the PTEs. This legislation does not do that. It clearly envisages an important role for the PTEs which will be involved with the Secretary of State in drawing up the requirements that lead to the signing of a franchise.
	The point at issue is whether the PTEs should be co-signatories. I recognise that the noble Lord has made an attempt to meet some of the objections that I presented the last time we discussed this issue; namely, that effectively there was an outright veto for passenger transport executives. I heard what the noble Lord said today, that the PTEs make a contribution to services, as indeed they do, but he would be the first to recognise that the great provider of resources for rail services is the Secretary of State and that the contribution of the PTEs, although not unimportant, is on the margins. We are not talking about any equality of partnership under the existing position with regard to co-signatories and who contributes resources. At present, there is equality in terms of being co-signatories.
	We seek to change that because a fundamental proposition behind the Bill, and central to it, is the fact that the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting the strategic direction and the amount of national funding that will be invested in the railways. These amendments cut across the fundamental principle of the Bill. That is why, despite the eloquent arguments that have been presented on a number of occasions, I have been unable to move to meet those representations—this is a point of fundamental principle. The Government, of course, have listened to the concerns of the PTEs and we, of course, have moved our position to take account of those concerns as far as possible, but these amendments strike at the principle of the structure under the Bill.
	An interesting point that has developed in the discussions today, and in the past, is that the Official Opposition have tended to disavow the past, for fairly good reasons when one considers the Opposition's record on railways, and they have concentrated on the future. My noble friends, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, have tended to eulogise the past and not look to the future. I want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill is about the future of the railways. In eulogising the past, they have painted it in rather rosy colours. The PTEs have not long been co-signatories—only since the time when Barbara Castle, as she then was, set them up. They have been co-signatories only since 1993, under the structure created by the previous administration, which my noble friends have been only too eager to support me in dismantling and putting in place a more constructive, more accurate and effective system for running the railways.
	I say to my noble friends that I recognise the achievements of the passenger transport executives in the past. We will not disavow their role for the future. We see them as constructive contributors to the provision of services in their localities. The point at issue is whether they are co-signatories with the Secretary of State, given his significant responsibility for national resources devoted to the railways under the framework of the Bill and with his overall responsibility for strategy.
	The system envisaged in these amendments goes back to an adversarial arrangement that would perpetuate and exacerbate the worst of the old system which the Bill is designed to replace. That is a system where some—not many—passenger transport executives use the fact that they have to co-sign a franchise before it can be let as a powerful lever in negotiations with the Strategic Rail Authority, a lever which, at times, has led to brinkmanship.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can he name the PTEs that are said to have caused this trouble with delays and the SRA?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in Committee, I detailed a number of examples regarding PTEs and other past difficulties. I am not emphasising this as the cardinal point of our argument. I am not saying that the purpose of the debate is to attack the PTEs on their past record, although clearly at times the exercise of their power has caused difficulty in the signing of franchises against a background where delays cost money.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, says that delays should be limited to 60 days. We have a problem with the definition of 60 days because it is not clear from his amendment where the 60 days begins. We have to be absolutely precise in law about when the clock starts ticking. I am afraid that I must convey that we do not think his amendment is specific enough in that regard.
	I am objecting to the principle—that delay costs money. Of course having a limit of 60 days would reduce the ability of the PTEs to create delay. That would not alter the fact that delays could occur over that period of time. Delays in signing such contracts are costly and the cost would be borne by the taxpayer. Who is responsible to the taxpayer? Not the PTEs, but the Secretary of State. That is why the Bill is constructed as it is. So, we are not clear that the 60-day part of the amendment produces significant benefits. We merely see dangers attached to it.
	The phrase used is, "when the agreement is being finalised". If the franchise agreement has been finalised, why would the PTEs need 60 days to consider whether they wish to sign? As the terms would be clear at that stage, the only reason could conceivably be if they wished to re-open negotiations in order to secure further concessions. To reach the signature stage and then to seek to start negotiations again would be totally inconsistent with an efficient, cost-effective franchising process.
	In many ways I think that the amendment makes the situation worse than is the current system. At present, although PTEs might use the threat of delay to lever advantages, no PTE would think that they could legally refuse to sign for two months. The amendment would give them precisely that power.
	The amendment also does not change the fact that PTEs could use their co-signatory status during the course of the franchise. That would lever in very significant power. We do not deny the contribution that the PTEs can make to the development of an effective rail system. We recognise—it is in the Bill—that the Secretary of State is involved in consultation with PTEs, before he establishes his position regarding a franchise, in order to take account of their position. But that is very different from the concept of co-signatory status.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps he can say a little more about the Secretary of State taking into account the views of the PTEs in dealing with the people to whom he is minded to award the franchise. What does "take into account" mean? Is this a 10-minute meeting saying, "This is what I propose to do. What do you think?" or is it a real and meaningful consultation?

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is a real and meaningful consultation, my Lords. The Bill clearly envisages that the Secretary of State cannot be a party to the franchise and develop a position regarding the franchise without taking on board and making arrangements to take on board the views of the PTEs. I am at one here with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has articulately expressed his view on several occasions, as have my noble friends. I am at one with their arguments that we should not create a system in which the PTEs, and therefore a local voice, has no effect and no role to play in the development of the railway in signing franchises.
	The Bill envisages an effective role for the PTEs in relation to the Secretary of State. But it carries as its absolutely cardinal principle that the Secretary of State bears responsibility for the strategic development of the railways—and of course he is the person who is responsible to and accountable for expenditure on the railways, which is provided to the greatest extent by national taxpayers.

Lord Snape: My Lords, am I to use my noble friend's own phrase "na-vely eulogising the past" in pointing out to him that it was a Conservative government who created this shambles in the first place, which allowed all the PTEs—all of them Labour controlled—to be signatories of franchise agreements in their areas? Here we have a Labour government saying to PTEs—most of them Labour controlled—that they cannot have any say in franchises. Am I "na-vely eulogising the past", or are his ears going slightly pink with embarrassment about that particular contradiction?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is adept at bringing physical characteristics into our exchanges. I hope to sustain them on an intellectual level. I emphasise to my noble friend that—of course he may derive some satisfaction—the PTEs, because of their role as co-signatories, were able to make a minor contribution to what in fact was a totally ineffective structure for the railways.
	We knew that it was a totally ineffective structure. That is why in 1997 it was an important part of our manifesto that we would change the system. We duly set out to do so, supported by an overwhelming majority of the elected House. We went before the country in 2001 with the same response, and we come before this House today recognising that the partial change we effected on the railway a few years ago needs to be completed by the Bill.
	In doing so, the Bill absolutely clearly—I am sure all my noble friends join me on this—centres the responsibility for the strategic development of the railways on the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State is responsible for the resources which are used mainly with regard to the railways. That is the proposition behind the Bill. It is why, despite several attempts by those who are motivated by the very best of intentions in seeking to emphasise the constructive role of the passenger transport executive, I am unable to accept the amendment or their arguments. It is not that I am against the role of the PTEs in representing their areas and their transport needs regarding the railways. That role is protected under the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot fulfil his responsibilities effectively without consultation with the PTEs in order to ensure that he has the right background for signing any franchise.
	Nevertheless, the position is clear. Fundamentally the Bill places the responsibility where it should be—with the Secretary of State. It is on that basis that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and reverting to the time-limit of 60 days, if by consultation that can be clarified by redrafting, is he prepared and is the department prepared to join in that process?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I fear that my answer to my noble friend is in the negative. As for the 60 days, I am in favour of, and the Bill envisages, effective consultation between the Secretary of State and the appropriate PTE for rail services in its area before any franchise is entered into. I ask my noble friend to accept that the concept of 60 days, even if it were drafted more accurately than it is in the amendment, would give to the PTE a restricted veto—restricted in time, but nevertheless a veto—over the signing of any franchise. That runs counter to the fundamental principle behind the Bill. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; I find it totally unsatisfactory. He protesteth rather too much this afternoon. Yesterday afternoon, we invited the Minister to consider the amendment and suggest alternative phraseology but I assume that there is a time during the negotiation of a franchise when the document is ready. We are saying that there should be 60 days during which the Secretary of State, the PTE and the franchisee, whoever he happens to be, will sign it. Obviously, in any such period, there will be room for further negotiation; there always is.
	To pretend that 60 days is a long time when some franchises have taken three or more years to finalise is nonsense. I am sure that many Members of the House find it very difficult to give that credence. If we carry the amendment, there will be an opportunity for that to be revisited. I do not think that presents a great difficulty. The Minister should reflect on the fact that we will give the PTEs something from the Bill; whereas I fear that, in his words, "such resources as the Secretary of State may devote to the railways" may leave the PTEs at the very sticky end of the wicket: they will be called on to close down services in their areas without any power to do anything about that and the Secretary of State will shuffle the responsibility on to them, because they will be the part-funding authority.
	I have long experience of the matter. The PTEs are a power for good. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 127.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 7:
	Page 12, line 16, at end insert—
	"(2A) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A) the Executive shall be a party to any franchise agreement in respect of any services specified in the statement providing that the Executive becomes a party to the agreement within 60 days of the agreement being finalised."
	Page 12, line 41, leave out from "unless" to end of line and insert "one of the conditions in subsection (5A) is met"
	Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
	"(5A) The conditions referred to in subsection (5) are—
	(a) that the agreement is not for purposes relating to or connected with the provisions of—
	(i) services for the carriage of passengers by railway; or
	(ii) station services provided for purposes connected with any such services;
	(b) that the agreement relates exclusively to the grant of permission for a person to use a railway facility where a Passenger Transport Executive is the facility owner or the person granted permission; and
	(c) the agreement is approved by the Secretary of State."
	Page 12, line 43, leave out "(5)" and insert "(5A)"
	Page 13, line 12, at end insert—
	"(8A) If the Secretary of State considers it desirable to do so in relation to any franchise agreement in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway he may give a direction to the Passenger Transport Executive or Executives for the area or areas concerned providing that any one or more of subsections (1A), (1B) or (2A), or any part of any one of those subsections, shall not have effect with respect to that franchise agreement."
	Page 13, line 17, at end insert "except that in the case of subsection (1A) it is a reference only to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway between places in that area"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Reviews by ORR of access charges and licence conditions]:

Viscount Astor: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 96, line 9, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Office of Rail Regulation shall not be entitled to make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) which is likely to lead to the services provided with the use or in respect of any railway facility being curtailed or discontinued (whether as to quality, time or in any other respect) unless the requirements of paragraph 1(G)(2B) have been complied with and the conditions in paragraph 1G(2C) have been satisfied.
	(2B) The requirements are that the Office of Rail Regulation has consulted—
	(a) the facility owner and the beneficiaries of all access contracts in respect of the railway facility in question; and
	(b) the franchisee under every franchise agreement which contemplates the franchisee, or any person on its behalf, using the railway facility in question,
	and has taken into consideration all representations and objections made to it by those persons in respect of the proposed determination.
	(2C) The Office of Rail Regulation may not make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) unless it is satisfied that—
	(a) the value of the rights of such facility owner and the beneficiaries under or in respect of that railway facility or those access contracts shall not be adversely affected by the proposed determination, or that adequate financial compensation shall be payable to them out of public financial resources in respect of any such adverse effect; and
	(b) in the case of a franchise agreement, the agreement shall be amended so as to relieve the franchisee from the obligation to comply with its terms to the extent that, if the agreement were not amended, compliance would be impossible or more onerous by reason of the proposed determination.
	(2D) If the Office of Rail Regulation fails to make a determination under paragraph 1G(2) by reason of one or both of the considerations specified in paragraph 1G(2C), the Secretary of State or Scottish ministers as appropriate shall ensure that public financial resources shall be increased accordingly."

Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is disappointing at this late stage of a Bill, and this Parliament, that we have been unable to come to an agreement on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been as helpful as he can, but I am afraid that his colleagues down the other end have not been so obliging.
	My amendment protects the rights of private-sector investors, passenger and freight operators, in the railway industry who could be aversely affected by cuts in spending imposed by the Secretary of State, if those cuts diminish the value of their existing rights under access contracts or cause them to face impossible or more onerous conditions in fulfilling their franchise agreements.
	Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power to set network outputs—the things that the network must be and the things that it must be able to do in terms of capacity or its condition. The Bill removes that power from the independent Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) and gives it to the Secretary of State. It does so because the Government wish to reassert complete control over spending on the railway. The problem is that in setting the network outputs in that way the Secretary of State may, due to a cash squeeze from the Treasury, have to put the network into decline. We all know what happened during the days of nationalisation.
	If the Secretary of State exercises that power and the network gets worse—for example, to the extent that it can accommodate fewer trains or they must go slower because of speed restrictions related to the condition of the track, or something like that—it could cause serious difficulties for existing private-sector operators. The value of their rights under existing contracts—I stress that we are talking about existing contracts, not future ones—could be diminished, perhaps materially.
	Freight operators could find that the maintenance burden on their rolling stock goes up, or that they must use more trains to provide the service levels to which they are committed under their contracts with commercial customers. Passenger operators may find themselves in a bind, with an obligation under their franchise agreements to produce certain outputs in terms of frequency, reliability, punctuality and overcrowding levels on trains, but unable to do so because the network is being cut back. Alternatively, it could be more expensive because to do so their resources need to be increased just to stand still and to provide the agreed level of service under their contract.
	None of those things would be the fault of either the freight or passenger operators concerned. The network getting worse because the Treasury has decided that it should be so can hardly be blamed on private-sector operators just trying to do their jobs, so they should not be penalised.
	On 9 February 2004, at the start of the rail review, the Secretary of State promised that those adverse consequences would not be visited upon private-sector operators, but I am afraid that that is exactly what the Bill does. For those reasons, my amendment provides essential protection in these limited but potentially very serious circumstances for private-sector operators.
	I stress again that the amendment protects only existing contractual rights. What contracts operators may enter into in the future, once they have seen how the regulatory and operating environment has been changed by the Bill, is another matter that is not affected by my amendment. We are concerned about the rights of existing operators, and that they should not be assaulted or trampled on by the Bill.
	The Minister said at an earlier stage that his department was working to develop access contracts and the network code to provide protections of the kind that the amendment seeks to establish. But there is a problem: the ORR can change the network code, which is part of every access contract, in a way that could diminish the protections and rights to compensation to operators when cutbacks are made. It has that right. If it exercises that right, it has no obligation to provide any redress or compensation for those who lose out as a result. If that happens—and I know that the ORR is coming under considerable pressure to make changes of that kind—the Minister's assurance that he kindly gave us in Committee will have no effect because operators' rights will already have been diminished. They need more than assurances which have, I am afraid, no bite.
	The Minister has helpfully said that the Government accept that franchise agreements would need to be varied in the event of inadequate funding being available for outputs for the network, should the level of services operated by the franchisees be made undeliverable. That is helpful, but it does not go as far as it needs to.
	It does not cover the case, which is much more likely than the service being impossible to deliver, of it being more expensive or more difficult to deliver the contracted service. The Government have so far shown no inclination to allow such amendments into the template franchise agreements, which are now being put to the private sector. The Minister will not accept that that protection should be wider than he has proposed or that it should be in the Bill. We believe that it should be both of those things.
	The alternative offered by the Minister's department is the inevitable judicial review. What a prospect: what a deterrent—judicially reviewing the Minister; the same Minister you rely on for your contract and for its eventual renewal when the result will not be known until long after the contract has expired. There is the uncertainty and the huge expense. The other alternative offered by the Minister's department was litigation in the courts. That, too, is expensive and uncertain, and the process takes a long time. It can easily take three or four years, which is probably well beyond the unexpired life of a contract.
	In offering those alternatives, the department appears plainly to accept that the operators need redress or relief in the circumstances contemplated by the amendment. But rather than dealing with the acknowledged problem here with clarity, certainty and finality, it favours long, drawn-out litigation.
	I believe that we should all be looking at the Bill to prevent people having to go to court, not encouraging them into litigation by passing bad legislation. My amendment will help to ensure that the Secretary of State behaves in a reasonable manner and respects the private rights of investors in the industry. Of course, if no cuts are made to the funding of the rail network, which could cause these serious adverse effects to the operators, there will be no need for this process. It is there as a protection if the Treasury gets its way and forces budget cuts.
	Without this change, private sector contractors will find their rights and protections diminished. There would be a very costly knock-on effect in the future as anyone contemplating taking on a franchise or an access contract to run any kind of service—whether passenger or freight—will have to build in a huge margin, just in case. So it will eventually cost the taxpayer.
	The Minister accused me on Monday, at Report, of asking the Secretary of State to sign a blank cheque. That is simply not true. My amendment relates only to the unexpired part of rail franchise and access contracts. I say again: it does not in any way affect future contracts. I think that the Minister now accepts that. In future contracts, if so inclined, the Secretary of State—in the case of franchises—and the ORR—in the case of access contracts and the network code—can ensure that they contain output adjustment mechanisms which avoid the need to compensate the operator in the future.
	My amendment ensures that if the Secretary of State changes the circumstances in which the contract has been set, and does not allow those affected relief under their contracts, he must allow changes to their contracts. He must compensate them or he must not do it. The choice will be his. The Secretary of State can avoid that happening by treating the operators fairly. He does not have to cut the network, but if he does he must recognise that existing private sector rights must be honoured and protected. There is no blank cheque, but just a simple, straightforward protection.
	My amendment is about fairness. It protects and gives confidence to those who invest in rail. Most importantly, it will benefit the poor, long-suffering passengers who are often overlooked in this debate. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my name is added to this amendment. I shall not detain the House because the noble Viscount has set out very succinctly the purpose of the amendment. It would protect train operators, including freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—against government action that adversely affects their business. It is quite simple and is quite a normal principle.
	On Monday, at Report, my noble friend basically made two points. The first was that this matter could be resolved by using the network code, which was prepared and run by the independent Office of Rail Regulation. Comfort should be taken that this office was independent. The second point was that the Government did not like to see the word "compensation" in the Bill.
	Perhaps I may remind the House that on both those issues the recently published Crossrail Bill does precisely what my noble friend said should not be in this Bill. The Crossrail Bill seeks to fetter very significantly the independence of the rail regulator by allowing the Secretary of State to instruct or direct him to give priority to one group of train operators over another, which would very seriously and adversely affect those who might have to have their access contracts changed. If one accepts that, it is reassuring that the Government have chosen to put in that Bill the fact that those people adversely affected should be capable of receiving compensation.
	So compensation is accepted for Crossrail, but it is not apparently accepted for the rest of the railway. Even more seriously, it demonstrates that one cannot rely long-term on the Government accepting that the rail regulator office should remain independent, which is one of the absolute foundations of the private railway network today. Whether people like privatised railways or not, that is what we have. The Office of Rail Regulation ensures that private sector interests, which have invested billions in the railways, should be able to enjoy the benefit of their investment without subsequent interference from the Government.
	Both of the arguments put forward by my noble friend should be treated with caution if the Government are prepared to change them so soon. This amendment is a very important part of the comfort that private-sector investors in the railways need if they are to invest with confidence in the future.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am pleased to associate these Benches with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are very keen that nothing should stand in the way of people's appetites for investment. That applies particularly to the freight sector, which, as I said at Report, is so vital and for which—I do not expect to treatise on that now—the Government have done very little to deal with the huge problem of congestion on the roads. I am pleased to support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on an issue that we considered in more general terms probably at Report stage. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on having refined his amendment and for concentrating his comments on the real issues at stake.
	I am well aware of and, of course, understand the concern of the train operators regarding the potential impact of any future access charges review on their businesses. I recognise the validity of concern expressed by all three noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
	As we have stated previously, the Government are keen to provide operators with the certainty that they will receive mitigation or compensation should their businesses be affected by these processes. We have made public an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail Regulation to that effect. So the debate on the amendment comes down to clear points of principle.
	First, we believe—not, as I think was suggested, that compensation should not be offered in proper circumstances—that compensation and mitigation are matters which should be dealt with through the access contracts. That is why we continue to work with the industry to ensure that access contracts and the network code deal as effectively as possible with these issues. If we accepted the amendment, it would bring legislation into an area where the existing contractual arrangements are working well and are clearly understood by the parties. It would be wrong to do this in principle and would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the commercial stability sought by private sector operators and investors, which was the burden of the remarks made by all three noble Lords.
	But the second point of principle is one which I sought to emphasise on Report. Again I address it to all parts of the House, but I suppose that I am bound to address it particularly to my noble friend. It is for the Secretary of State and for Scottish Ministers to determine how much they are willing and able to spend in support of railway services. No statutory requirement should be added to that budget subsequent to their decisions. While I recognise my noble friend's defence of the interests he represents so ably—he has every right to do so—I ask him to accept that we are debating this at a point when the nation is about to decide in a general election who should be its representatives, and that Members of the other place are now putting their own positions on the line. I also ask him and other noble Lords to consider whether it is right that a budget established by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers in their area should be increased by statute in circumstances over which they would have no direct control. Surely that goes against the fundamental democratic position of accountability. That ought to be borne in mind by all of us in this House who do not have to stand for election in order to reach our judgments on this issue, one that concerns funding and resources for which the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers are responsible.
	I turn to the second argument put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. This refined amendment would come into effect only in limited circumstances and would cover only the difference between what would be paid under the contract and what is adequate so that the risk to the Government is not that great. I would argue that we do not know what the risk would be. The amendment establishes the principle that the Secretary of State is open to having his budget extended, and we do not know what the circumstances might be and therefore the sums involved in terms of compensation.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I accept that no one wants the Secretary of State to have a blank cheque. That would be totally stupid. What the amendment is trying to do is suggest that if there is a problem with the overall budget—and these situations do not arise overnight—compared with what the Secretary of State wants to buy in terms of services, he has various options. He could cut the passenger services he is buying, or he could reduce the state of the network so that non-passenger, non-franchise services incur higher costs. He could do any of those things. However, if these companies then incur higher costs, he could include in his budget a contingency for compensation.
	The Secretary of State does not need to increase his overall budget. He needs only to recognise that there may be a justifiable claim for compensation and therefore he needs to include in his budget a contingency for meeting such a claim. I suggest to my noble friend that there is no question of the budget having to be increased ad infinitum because of an open-ended claim of the type he suggests.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend must be a little careful with the concept of contingency funding. I can think of certain expenditures from the contingency fund of hugely significant proportions for government, so I am not sure that that concept can be translated to legislation in quite the rather facile way he suggests.
	We maintain that the contracts should be signed and the work done on the basis of understanding aspects of risk. Built into that is proper consideration of when things might go wrong. But the idea of having a kind of sinking fund created by the Secretary of State with taxpayers' money available to be dipped into and shelled out under ill defined circumstances is one that I am surprised to see my noble friend supporting. But I am even more surprised that the Conservative Party, on the brink of a general election in which they are spending so much time showing how proper their candidates must be about public expenditure plans, is actually promoting an amendment that is an open-ended demand on a Secretary of State.
	I hope that the noble Viscount will recognise the wisdom of withdrawing his amendment and accept that the Government's provisions adequately meet the situation.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have to say to the Minister that that was a good try, but this amendment does not in any way increase public expenditure. He knows that, I know that, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, know it. But the Minister has to stick to his brief and we sympathise with him.
	The noble Lord has talked about principle. We know already that the Government have accepted the principle of my amendment because they have published it in the Crossrail Bill, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The ORR is independent and I hope that it will remain so, but I remind noble Lords that the Strategic Rail Authority, created by this Government in 2001 and which was supposed to be the answer to managing the rail network for the future, is to be abolished by this Bill. We do not know what is going to happen.
	The important point is that the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to change the circumstances in which the contracts were originally negotiated by the private sector. My amendment would ensure that if the Secretary of State does change those circumstances, he will not unfairly penalise those who have signed contracts with the Government. That is an important principle. If the Government do not accept it, it will affect every future contract in the private sector signed with any department. All of them could just be changed.
	My amendment does not increase public expenditure and has nothing to do with increasing the Secretary of State's budget. It is a simple protection measure. I am disappointed that the Government will not accept it and, while I understand the Minister's position, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 135.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill

Report received.
	Clause 6 [Annual plans]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 4, line 32, leave out from "SOCA" to "and" in line 33

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is a simple consequential amendment which follows the removal of the previous Clause 10 yesterday, which would have empowered the Home Secretary to direct the setting of performance targets by SOCA. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Grants by Secretary of State]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 10, line 41, leave out subsections (3) and (4)

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall be brief. Following discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Government have agreed to remove the provision in Clause 17 that would enable the Secretary of State to attach conditions to the grant payment to SOCA. It is not unusual for such a provision to be included in the founding statute of a non-departmental public body, but in the spirit of co-operation, we are content to omit the provision from Part 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Determinations relating to grants under section 17]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
	Page 11, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
	Page 11, line 16, leave out "(including any proposed conditions under section 17(3))"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 61 [Offences to which this Chapter applies]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 35, line 36, at end insert "which is a qualifying offence"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the powers outlined in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill will be vital tools in the fight against serious organised crime. The powers will be used proportionately and only for the most serious offences. These amendments signal the Government's commitment to ensure that there will be an appropriate seriousness test for the use of these powers with certain financial offences. They set a minimum threshold of £5,000 for offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Theft Act 1968. I hope that the amendments will meet the concerns previously raised by noble Lords. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 13:
	Page 35, line 39, at end insert ", which is a qualifying offence"
	Page 36, line 3, leave out ", (d) or (e)" and insert "or any offence in paragraph (d) or (e) which is a qualifying offence"
	Page 36, line 6, leave out ", (d) or (e)" and insert "or any offence in paragraph (d) or (e) which is a qualifying offence"
	Page 36, line 6, at end insert—
	"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) an offence in paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection is a qualifying offence if the Investigating Authority certifies that in his opinion—
	(a) in the case of an offence in paragraph (d) or an offence of cheating the public revenue, the offence involved or would have involved a loss, or potential loss, to the public revenue of an amount not less than £5,000;
	(b) in the case of an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60), the offence involved or would have involved a loss or gain, or potential loss or gain, of an amount not less than £5,000.
	(1B) A document purporting to be a certificate under subsection (1A) is to be received in evidence and treated as such a certificate unless the contrary is proved."
	Page 36, line 7, after "order" insert—
	"(a) "
	Page 36, line 8, at end insert—
	"(b) amend subsection (1A), in its application to England and Wales, so as to—
	(i) take account of any amendment made by virtue of paragraph (a) above, or
	(ii) vary the sums for the time being specified in subsection (1A)(a) and (b)."
	Page 36, line 9, after "order" insert—
	"(a) "
	Page 36, line 10, at end insert—
	"(b) amend subsection (1A), in its application to Scotland, so as to—
	(i) take account of any amendment made by virtue of paragraph (a) above, or
	(ii) vary the sums for the time being specified in subsection (1A)(a) and (b)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 110 [Powers of arrest]:

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Leave out Clause 110

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I hope it will be acceptable to your Lordships that something more should be said on this clause and on this part of the Bill. The way the matter fell in Committee—the marshalling of the amendments and the way in which they were, for the most part, not moved on this clause—was something on which I sought advice. I appreciated, perhaps rather later than I should, that the only way for the Government to say a little more about this matter was for me to put down the amendment on the Marshalled List, which I shall duly dispatch in the expected manner. This is an important matter because there is hardly a more serious deprivation of liberty than being the subject of lawful arrest.
	I appreciate, too, that the law is in rather a mess. Fundamentally, it was not my understanding that the Government really had to adopt the option which they did in relation to it. Looking back over our Second Reading debate and at the extensive debate in Committee in another place, from which one could hardly say a complete consensus emerged, I have to admit that I—and not only I but various experts in the field who have spoken to me about this—was rather surprised that this was not a matter which could have been left over for another Parliament, when I think we would have had a much closer and prolonged debate on it. The calendar, of course, is in the Government's arrangement, and certain parts of the Bill have been left aside because they are controversial. One of the points about putting this amendment down is that the Government may find, as time goes along, that the new pattern of powers to arrest is rather more controversial than they appreciated.
	The two matters raised in Clause 110 are the powers of a police constable to arrest and the citizen's power of lawful arrest, without a warrant in each case. I touch briefly on the basic matters: we are abolishing the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences. We are introducing a power for the constable lawfully to arrest without a warrant anyone who is about to commit an offence. That specifically includes any offence whenever committed, someone who is in the act of committing an offence or suspected of being about to commit an offence and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, so long as it is necessary to arrest the person in question. New Section 24(5)(e) provides that that includes allowing the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or—and I stress the disjunction—the conduct of the person in question. It deals not merely with the investigation of offence but investigation of conduct.
	Commentary on this matter has already begun in the journals. I am sure that the Government understand that that is there. I should like to refer to just one of the articles which are appearing and are about to appear. Professor Spencer of Cambridge, an ex-colleague of mine, who is not to be lightly brushed off as some extravagant gadfly on the law and is a very serious authority, has suggested that,
	"the power to arrest will be limited, in theory, in that it will 'only' arise if one of a list of conditions is present. But the limitation is illusory, because the list contains 11 items, one of which is 'to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question'. It will be a rare case indeed in which one of these conditions"—
	such as that one—"does not exist".
	Although Professor Spencer agrees that it is desirable for us to move forward and modernise, as the Home Office has put it, the law on arrest, both for constables and non-constable citizens, he questions seriously whether the Government's position on the matter is right in any respect. Having read all the proceedings, I have not really found a clear statement of the justification for moving at such speed and in such a direction on this matter. I therefore offer the Government an opportunity of saying something fundamental on the issue.
	For instance, Professor Spencer says that the Government have promised that,
	"after the Bill is passed, it will put limits on the . . . powers of the police by issuing a new code of practice".
	But, he says, this is deeply unsatisfactory:
	"What the government is telling Parliament, in effect, is this: 'Vote to extend police powers now—and trust us to impose some limits afterwards'".
	That is put in the manner in which the author normally puts his points—rather directly.
	He continues:
	"In a democracy that respects the rule of law, the limits of coercive powers like these should be laid down in primary legislation, not in codes, written and rewritten as each new Home Secretary sees fit".
	On the brink of an election, the power of the last words is immediate.
	It is difficult to understand what traumatic damage to the social fabric would have been caused if a reform of this area of the law, which everyone agrees needs rethinking, had been left for a short or medium term in which much more profound debate could take place. With great respect to the other place, which spent some time on this issue on 18 January, one cannot think that all the corners of what is a vast territory were touched.
	Of course, similar criticisms are being made about the citizen's power of arrest. The new citizen's power of arrest for any offence will include one where the person is in the act of committing an indictable offence:
	"Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence",
	or guilty of an indictable, offence and it is necessary to arrest the person.
	Professor Spencer offers some thoughts on that new power, which goes far beyond breach of the peace and the like, in saying that,
	"the Bill proposes to extend the existing power to cover all indictable offences, and limit the power,
	of the non-constable,
	"for the suspect to be restrained or detained. For the citizen out of uniform, this new package would be as obscure and unhelpful as the present law. Unless they have law degrees, 'have-a-go heroes' do not know which offences are indictable, and which are not—
	or indeed—
	"which ones are punishable by five years' imprisonment".
	He suggests that this particular reform will create a great deal of danger for people who think that they can operate their powers as a non-constable citizen.
	Therefore, I wish to raise two issues with the Government. The first that I have raised is why push this particular package through? My understanding, and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, is that the review of the PACE statutory powers did not require the Government to adopt this option. It is their choice and a great number of technical problems arise other than those that I have mentioned.
	Secondly, it seems very strange for the power of arrest to cover all offences, serious or trivial. I understand what my noble friend on the Front Bench said in Committee. She said that the Government will come out with the new code of practice,
	"so there will be an opportunity for debates and consideration of those issues".—[Official Report, 5/4/05; col. 639.]
	Those are the issues that were raised in connection with the power of arrest. I should have thought that such a fundamental issue as deprivation of liberty without breach of the law on the part of the person doing it would have required fundamental debate of all the issues, including the necessity of the arrest—of which particular criticisms can be made, whatever the code of conduct—before the legislation went on the statute book.
	I do not see how it would be a breach of any of the Government's obligations. Was this a manifesto commitment? It does not seem to have been. Why push this through now? We know that parts of this Bill are not being pushed through now because they are controversial. The fact that people in the other place and here have not spotted the controversy is not now open to the Government because I am pointing it out to them. This is very controversial: it will be controversial in the literature and in practice.
	There is a final point which authors are raising immediately. Academics are allowed to raise points these days about ordinary people—they are rather ordinary people, especially academic lawyers. They are saying, with some seriousness, that the relationship between the police and ordinary people in the public is precious. If the new powers are more likely to give rise to mistakes—and I have every sympathy with someone who has to exercise them and avoid mistakes—surely it should have been argued out in much greater detail and not put into the calendar of the general election. It is not really suitable to be rushed through.
	That expresses a strong view of my own, but I rely on those writers who are writing about the matter rather more critically than the Government have yet appreciated. Naturally, I look forward to the response of my noble friend on the Front Bench and hope that she will give us some rather better reasons for what has been done. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to give a fuller explanation and I am sorry that we are doing that so late in the day.
	The proposals in Clause 110 focus on simplifying the current complex array of arrest powers which has developed since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act over two decades ago. My noble friend was right to raise the issue of the review because we think that the provisions reflect one of the primary recommendations of the review of PACE carried out in November 2002 by the Cabinet Office and the Home Office in consultation with stakeholders.
	The review recognised the need for greater clarity and definition of arrest powers. It made a number of suggested changes around definition and lists of offences, but the more substantive recommendation was for more radical ideas about expanding the scope to arrest and to consult on those proposals. That is what we have done. The consultation paper on modernising police powers, published last autumn, set out this new approach which simplifies, both for the police and the public, the powers of arrest but which, importantly, also maintains key safeguards and protections for the public. We understand and are aware of the need for safeguards and protection.
	In doing so, we have sought to enable the arresting officer to consider the individual circumstances of each case—to look at the needs of the victim, the nature of the offence, the requirements of the criminal justice system and the circumstances of the offender. This is where the concept comes in.
	Section 25 of PACE currently provides a constable with a general power of arrest for any offence. In making use of the power, a constable is required to consider the conditions set out in the Act and is required to make a judgment in each case. The framework powers of arrest for arrestable and serious arrestable offences under Section 24 of PACE remove the arbitrary decision on whether arrest is possible, but it still remains a decision of the officer on the street whether there are legitimate grounds to exercise that power. The necessity test would raise the level of accountability of the arresting officer in each individual arrest situation and minimise the ability for arbitrary interference.
	During the passage of this Bill, both in this House and in the other place, concerns have, as my noble friend rightly said, been raised that extending the power of arrest to all offences might lead to a significant rise in the numbers of arrests being made as people are arrested for minor crimes. We are not suggesting that the seriousness of the offence is not a consideration when a constable decides to make an arrest. But it is not the sole consideration. Rather it is just one of a number of necessary factors which should be taken into account.
	However, these powers must be proportionate to the offence. That is why we are producing a new PACE code of practice on arrest which will amplify the reasons justifying an arrest of a person. The code will be drafted in consultation with a range of stakeholders and will be subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary process.
	As my noble friend identified, this clause also deals with the powers of arrest for persons who are not constables by inserting a new power into PACE in Section 24A. Similarly, we are looking to provide clarity in this area by indicating that a person other than a constable may arrest in those circumstances where it is necessary to prevent harm or injury, loss or damage to property or the person is making off before a constable can assume responsibility. Additionally, the person must be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead. All of those are within the ken of the normal, average citizen.
	In the other place, we tabled an amendment that the so-called "citizen's power of arrest" was applicable only in relation to indictable offences. The amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed during the public consultation exercise and in the other place that the citizen's power of arrest should not be extended to minor offences.
	The rationalisation of powers in this whole area represents a significant change to PACE and the framework of arrest. That is not done lightly nor without significant consideration that it improves and enhances the existing structure. We believe that it does and that view is supported by a large number of respondents to the public consultation exercise. We also believe that we are proposing a new structure that is proportionate and balances the needs of the police while protecting the rights of the individual.
	I hope that, given that full explanation, my noble friend will be content that the course that we have taken is appropriate. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter when it comes back by way of affirmative resolution. There will also be discussion with all the stakeholders, who, I am sure, will make their views on the provisions crystal clear.

Lord Monson: My Lords, will it be a defence for an individual who carries out a citizen's arrest, believing mistakenly that the offence that he is preventing is an indictable one, to argue that the law is hazy or unclear on the precise dividing line between indictable and non-indictable offences?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that defences are set out in the jurisprudence that we have and in the statutes and that anyone can take advantage of those defences and no other. As I made plain, the measure was not originally in the Bill; it was brought in because there was a strong feeling among noble Lords opposite, Members in the other place and people elsewhere that there had to be some sort of benchmark to differentiate between minor offences and more serious ones. But it is also plain, if one looks at the type of situations when an individual may feel it appropriate to arrest—I have already identified those—that they fall into the more serious category as opposed to the minor. I invite my noble friend therefore not to press his amendment.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in doing what I have to do, I commend my noble friend on the Front Bench on giving us a new, or rather enlarged, agenda for the debate, which alas we cannot have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 120 [Staff custody officers: designation]:

Baroness Harris of Richmond: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Leave out Clause 120

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, yesterday, I spoke at length about custody sergeants and the need for them to retain that substantive rank in custody suites. I return to this because the answers given by the Government were wholly unsatisfactory.
	None of the real concerns expressed in stringent terms by the police was addressed. I was deeply disappointed to hear that the Conservatives in another place have decided to accept the Government's position on nothing more than a promise that whoever is chosen to go into the custody suite will be well trained and held in sufficiently high esteem by their colleagues to perform their duties. What on earth does that mean? What does a person have to exhibit before he or she is deemed to be held in such high esteem? Who will watch over those new appointees and judge whether they will be suitable to hold people in custody—and, more, that they will be under the full power of PACE? Can the IPCC—the Independent Police Complaints Commission—investigate complaints against civilian custody officers? If so, how will that be publicised, so that a person held in custody will know that they have the protection of that law?
	I contacted the Police Superintendents' Association this morning and got its views. Thinking back to the time before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the time of Judges' Rules and so on—they remembered a time, as do I, when many abuses were carried out regarding the detention of suspects. PACE was necessary to codify what the police should and should not do with suspects. The linchpin of all that was that custody officers, who have protection in law for their decisions taken in support of the Act, were able to have the strength of the law behind them, even if it meant speaking out against senior investigating officers, who might want to interview a suspect against the requirements of PACE.
	The service respects that independence, and I was told that senior detectives had accepted custody officers' decisions when clearly they had been unpopular. The new provisions do not provide anything like the proper independent statutory role for this post. A member of police staff—a civilian custody officer—may not have the same authority with senior investigating officers as a police colleague would do. I am fearful that it will not be long before we reap the whirlwind that that might unleash.
	Custody, surely, is part of the investigative process. Many crimes have been detected in custody suites, and what I fear is behind the Bill is the aim that a custody suite will be enabled to be operated by a private company. I am sure that I do not need to elaborate on the problems that that might cause.
	Yesterday, I listed a range of important players in the police field who have expressed deep concern about this part of the Bill—bodies such as the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents' Association, Liberty, the Law Society, Centrex, and so on. Even at this late hour, I ask the Government to reconsider their position.
	Yesterday, the Minister told us that Customs officers and others had similar expertise. I should like to know how many people Customs officers "and others" have held in their custody and under what regulations. Were they subjected to PACE regulations, as well? When will all the training for those "other" people take place, and what happens in the lacuna before that training is completed? In my experience, different applications of training standards apply across the individual police forces, with the result that national standards are not always adhered to. Those standards ought to be crystal clear and certainly understood before the Bill is enacted. Who will be the independent evaluator of the pilot studies? Will we have the opportunity of seeing that evaluation and assessing for ourselves whether the pilots have been successful?
	It is simply not right to keep telling us that it is to be a new and different agency from traditional policing. It is still going to deal with crime. The whole area has been so badly thought out and flies in the face of such strong policing opposition that I hope that the Minister will reconsider her position on the use of civilians as custody officers. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief in supporting my noble friend Lady Harris.
	I served as a member of the Police Complaints Authority, and it was at this time that I came into close contact with custody officers in police cells. In cases when violence or death in custody were being investigated, the first point of contact was always the custody sergeant. The responsibility for what happens in custody suites is very heavy, and the Police Federation is right to criticise the Government, because no civilian without the type of training that a sergeant receives can carry out his or her duties satisfactorily.
	Only a few minutes ago, I received an e-mail from a member of the Police Federation. The crux is that the Police Federation believes, according to this particular member, that the measure,
	"will have a detrimental effect on the care and custody of prisoners. It is vitally important that this remains a role carried out by fully sworn, experienced police officers".
	The question that my noble friend Lady Harris posed concerned the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and its relationship to custody officers. It would be very helpful if the Minister were to explain whether civilian custody officers would form part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's machinery; in other words, can an individual make a complaint about a civilian custody officer? What processes and procedures will be in place to make the public aware that that can be done?
	The police have paid out millions of pounds in compensation where cases have been taken up not by the Independent Police Complaints Commission but where cases have been brought in the civilian courts long before the IPCC or the PCA had the opportunity to consider them. What would be the position of civilian custody officers if cases were brought against them by suspects who considered that they had been violently treated or had not received appropriate treatment? We need to clarify those questions at this stage.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too would like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, as I did yesterday. Indeed, I have very little to add to what I said then. I simply emphasise that this matter is of serious concern to the police themselves. I also emphasise the point that SOCA will not deal with civilian complaints, civil matters, but with hardened criminals. It will be necessary to have experienced people to deal with that kind of work. My noble friend Lord Clarke started when he heard mention of a privatised suite, as did I. It seems to me that we are privatising a service which has previously been properly and efficiently handled by the police. It will be handed over to civilians who, no matter what training they have, will not have the same authority and experience of criminals as have the police. Our discussion now and, indeed, our previous discussion on Amendment No. 14, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, shows that that is the case.
	I did not intervene in the discussion on the previous amendment as, frankly, the whole issue was so complicated that it was difficult to grasp it in the short time available. That is happening with the amendment which we are currently discussing, has happened with many other amendments which we have discussed and with other matters which we shall not discuss. It is a disgrace that we are pushing this important Bill forward with such haste and with so little scrutiny by this House of the many matters contained in this Bill with its 174 clauses and 18 schedules. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure.
	I repeat what I suggested yesterday; namely, that we should not have allowed the Bill through. It should be returned to the House of Commons after the election and given a formal passage through all its stages and then it should be sent back to this House to enable us to discuss it properly. I support the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should underline very clearly that the Bill has been fully scrutinised in the other place. There was proper debate and anxious consideration of it. We have spent considerable time exploring the issues both on Second Reading and in Committee. Therefore, I shall not weary the House by repeating everything that I said yesterday in replying to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, or in replying to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, I should like to deal with a couple of points that they identified as being still of concern in relation to the IPCC.
	The noble Baroness asks what we are going to do about complaints regarding non-police officers who take up the role of custody officer. Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which set up the IPCC, gives the commission oversight of the investigation of complaints against police officers and police staff. In addition, noble Lords will know that, as now, police authorities, as the employers of police staff, are liable for any wrongful acts committed by such staff. That will also be the case with civilian custody officers.
	Looking at the general position, I emphasise that the proposals in the Bill do not remove the ability for a police sergeant to continue in the role of custody officer. We very much recognise the contribution made by uniformed sergeants to the post and the effective and efficient operation of custody suites. We do not want to lose that experience or those skills. In the Bill we are providing a capability for others who have demonstrated that they have the appropriate skill to discharge this function to do so. I said yesterday, and I repeat, that there is provision for appropriate training before any individual could be entrusted with this role. We have spoken about Centrex's role and the guidance.
	I remind the House that PACE itself sets the benchmark for how an individual should be treated when detained in a custody suite after arrest. Those provisions will apply as strongly to any new custody officer as they have always applied to those who are detained.
	I appreciate the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, this is a new body. It will have to be properly integrated. I would not be surprised if in the first instance the majority, if not all, the custody officers who join SOCA come from the police. However, we are not putting in place provisions for what happens now, this year or next year but for the long-term development of the agency. Over time, a number of people will enter the agency who will be, or may be, fitted for that role by virtue of the experience of having worked within it. It is important for us to remember that.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that there is no question of privatisation of the role of custody officer. We are talking here about enabling chief officers—I emphasise that—to appoint to that role police staff employed by the police authority. Therefore, there is no reason for there to be concern that somehow something will be inappropriately done.
	I hope that with that further explanation the noble Baroness will think it appropriate not to press her amendment.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to ameliorate some of the harm that has been done in this Bill. Sadly, her arguments do not persuade me one little bit. Custody sergeants were always going to be my cause célèbre.
	For instance, how is the noble Baroness going to ensure that national training standards for this very important role are going to be rolled out and used in exactly the same way in every police force in the country? They have not been so far. As I said earlier, national standards, while they apply, have been used differently in different police forces. There is still no way of getting around that.
	I certainly have not been persuaded by the arguments that the Government have put forward. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 141.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 121 [Custody officers: amendments to PACE]:
	[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
	Clause 133 [Notice of demonstrations in designated area]:

Baroness Williams of Crosby: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 96, line 29, leave out from second "is" to end of line 31

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we have already heard some impressive speeches this afternoon. I immediately express my apology for not having been able to be present in Committee yesterday, but I was present at Second Reading. I feel extremely strongly about the issue, and I shall be brief.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond have drawn attention to the fact that, in the Bill, there are a number of unrealised and insufficiently appreciated elements that will have a major effect in our society in years to come. One of them concerns demonstrations and whether they can be held within the ambit of Parliament Square and the areas that traditionally in this country have been the centres of demonstrations for many decades.
	Either on grounds of security—not necessarily justified—or even on arguments of tidiness, we are gradually seeing the colour and the vivacity of our democracy leeched out. Many of us are conscious that we live in a society that feels much less free than it did 10 or 15 years ago. We always have to ask whether it is necessary to take such steps. In these clauses, it is not necessary to do so. Let me say one or two quick words about that.
	Demonstrations are a crucial safety valve—a way in which our fellow citizens can express their indignation, anger or disgust at government policy. I say that about all governments at all times. It is crucial to allow our fellow citizens to demonstrate peacefully because, if we make that extremely difficult, sooner or later they will demonstrate non-peacefully. That is the lesson from many other societies.
	Let us look at the examples of two recent great demonstrations. Both were great credits to our democracy, and both saw Parliament as their target and the hub of their protest. The first was the great Iraq march, in which many of us took part. It brought home to the Government the extent to which many of our fellow citizens felt deeply concerned about that war and the arguments leading up to it. The second, from a very different part of the political spectrum, was the Countryside Alliance demonstration. It was widely rumoured in the press to be likely to get out of hand, but was actually conducted with extraordinary courtesy and restraint.
	It has been a credit to our democracy that, on both sides of the political spectrum, such demonstrations have been held, to the great admiration of many other parts of the world. It might be said by the Government, "There is no reason for you to object. After all, we are still going to permit demonstrations". However, they will be demonstrations so controlled and capricious that it would be very difficult for them to take place within the "designated area" with any degree of true freedom. I shall give three examples.
	First, the designated area is much wider than it need be to protect the Houses of Parliament. It is simply ludicrous that the designated area as it stands—I am not clear exactly where it will run—includes almost all the areas of traditional demonstration in London, such as Whitehall, the Embankment and Parliament Square itself. Then there is a question about whether Trafalgar Square is in or out; it is certainly within a kilometre of the Houses of Parliament.
	Secondly, there is some uncertainty about the degree of notice required. Will it be six days except in exceptional circumstances, and how does one define those? Will the exceptional circumstances be widely recognised so that anyone dealing with a demonstration about a recent event—something new that has happened or an announcement by the Government—would be permitted to go ahead?
	Thirdly—this was hardly debated at all in Committee, and not debated much in the other place—huge uncertainty is constituted by Clauses 134 and 135, which are rather innocently described as supplementary provisions. If I understand them properly, they allow, amazingly, any "senior police officer"—defined as the most senior person in any group who happens to be present at the time, which often may be a constable or someone only a little more senior—to change, vary or add to the conditions. Those are the very conditions laid down by the commissioner of police that have required notice to be given.
	That is intolerable. It means that a decent organiser of a demonstration will not know until he is actually involved in it precisely what conditions have to be met by those whom he has organised to take part in it. That would not be so serious were it not for the scale of the punishment that would be visited on him or her if he or she got it wrong or was unable to change what the demonstration did at what may be the very last moment. Those sentences include 51 weeks of custody or a level 4 fine—the kinds of punishment that we normally reserve for people who have committed some substantial crime in the ordinary world.
	Do we really want to put police officers in a position in which they vary and change conditions at such a high price to the genuine citizen taking part in a demonstration? That will gradually drive people away from the designated site altogether, which is far from desirable because—bluntly—it is important that Parliament feels in itself the anger and indignation of its fellow citizens and does not try to encapsulate itself from any such inconveniences. We worry about the gap between Parliament and the people; the Bill will widen that gap yet further, completely unnecessarily.
	In conclusion, all of us in the past few weeks have hugely admired the amazing demonstrations in the Ukraine against rigged elections, which went right up to the doors of the parliament and which brought about, totally non-violently, the change in the Ukrainian regime and the ushering in of genuine democracy. We have admired the demonstration of tens of thousands of people in the Lebanon, calling for the Syrians to leave. That was described, from the White House to 10 Downing Street, as a remarkable example of the great attempt to extend democracy to new parts of the world.
	How bizarre and how ironic it should be that those very things that we praised in the Lebanon, in the Ukraine, in Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere, we are now beginning to make almost impossible in our own country. I would ask the Minister to think seriously about the implications if the Government's proposals, not only here, but also far beyond where British influence and British example have long been regarded as important. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly, not to add to the passionate and sensible speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but simply to point out that, as a Front-Bencher, my remarks on this were put on record at Second Reading and yesterday. For the record, I remind my colleagues, who may not be present at this moment but may read the record, that if a Division were to occur it would be on a free vote.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Williams. I fear that this part of the Bill in particular gives such wide and discretionary powers to the police, and those to whom they are expressly given, as to create a dangerous regime. I should add to my noble friend's remarks that, for example, under Clause 136, a constable can arrest a single demonstrator in the belief that the demonstrator has not obtained the necessary authorisations.
	A demonstration could constitute a single person, because the Bill makes it clear that the demonstration can be by someone who is merely shouting in the street—for example, when seeing someone leaving these Houses who that demonstrator feels passionately about in relation to the issue concerned. That individual will, if the provision is passed, be subject to immediate arrest by any policeman in the vicinity. That is not remotely right or sensible.
	If the Minister says that the police will of course exercise their discretion, it would underline my concern about the discretionary nature of these vast powers. Parliament is increasingly dealing with that type of legislation and it is bad legislation. I merely wished to say that and to support strongly the comments that have been made.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I have an open mind about Amendment No. 17. Regarding Amendment No. 18, I acknowledge the stirring speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and I take on board the many interesting points that she made, with which I agree to a considerable extent.
	Is not one of the problems with Amendment No. 18, as drafted, that a 100-metre exclusion zone that started even at the south-eastern corner of Parliament Square would not, I suspect, protect the Black Rod's Garden entrance, for example, nor—although I have not had time to pace it out—would it protect the southernmost part of our car park?
	Would the noble Baroness consider returning at Third Reading with an amendment that compromises at somewhere between one kilometre and 100 metres? I would suggest a quarter of a mile—and I declare an interest as patron of the British Weights and Measures Association, to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, also belongs. Survey after survey has demonstrated that the great majority of people in this country, of all age groups, continue to think in Imperial terms, despite years of metric indoctrination. Setting down the limits in terms of yards or fractions of a mile would help the public to understand—quite literally—how far they could go.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I do not wish to repeat what I said yesterday, but I feel that I am living in some type of Cloud-cuckoo-land when a Labour Government are bringing forward this type of legislation.
	I was in the Labour Party for 54 years and in that party we believed that people had the right to assemble in virtually all circumstances and that it was part of this country's freedoms and heritage that they should be able to do so. We were always proud of the right to assemble outside Parliament and to be able to demonstrate our views to the elected representatives of the people and do so without let or hindrance; and, indeed, with the assistance of the authorities and the police.
	Now we have a piece of legislation which will keep people away from the doors of our great and ancient Parliament. We will discourage them from coming here and will put them at the risk of arrest, as far as I understand, for the minor offences that they may commit. I cannot hope to emulate the language of the noble Baroness. She put the case so well that it needs little addition, but I emphasise that the most disgraceful part of the proposal is that it comes from the Labour Party—a party that was built on the right of people to speak and to act in support of freedom, to demonstrate—particularly against Tory governments—when things were going wrong and to allow trade unionists to march in the vicinity of this place. I think that trade unionists shall still be able to do so, but I do not see why it should be only them.
	I wish to express my sheer disappointment that we should have this type of legislation from the party of which I was a member for 54 years, which I admired throughout that period and for which I worked with great alacrity. I regret the passing of such a party.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief, as I spoke at some length on this matter yesterday. It is not often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but I am delighted with his contribution today. The point that I made yesterday was right—if I may remind the Minister again—that when the Leader of the House of Commons, Peter Hain, was the chairman of my Young Liberal movement, he and I repeatedly passed outside the House, shouting various slogans. It would be nice to seek his opinion on this clause—but I shall leave that matter on one side.
	My reason for standing up was to talk about Amendment No. 17. Its purpose very much relates to the comments of my noble friend Lady Williams. We believe that the reduction by the Government from six days to 24 hours of the need to notify the commissioner still does not allow spontaneous protests in the vicinity of Parliament. The purpose of our amendment is to remove this provision and to ensure that spontaneous demonstrations are possible.
	There is one other concern, about Black Rod's Garden. My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the Houses of Parliament. I take it that that includes Black Rod's Garden.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the Labour Party has not changed in the 54 years in which he has been a member—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: To this extent, my Lords. We still passionately believe in the freedom of assembly and the freedom to demonstrate. We are proud, too, of the right, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, to assemble before Parliament to demonstrate before the elected Members.
	I should also like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we similarly believe that great credit should be given to our democracy for that ability to protest. We do not believe that the controls that we put in place are capricious, as she fears; they have to be judiciously and reasonably exercised. It is incumbent on any commissioner who has this duty and capacity to exercise that power reasonably. As she knows, there are perfectly robust ways of ensuring that the proper exercise of that power is maintained and is not capriciously used. It will therefore be incumbent on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to act reasonably. Therefore, it is putting the case far too high to suggest that it would be impossible for reasonable protest to continue.
	I remind the House that although it is reasonably understood, the concern that has been expressed is not justified. These clauses would require protesters to give prior notice of their protest to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. However, he or she is obliged—I emphasise that word—to authorise the demonstration. It will, however, be open to him or her to attach conditions to the authorisation where necessary; for example, to safeguard the operation of Parliament or to prevent a security risk in the area. "Necessary" is an important word. If you can combine necessity with reasonableness, then it is quite clear that the power would have to be judiciously and properly exercised.
	The Government believe that no point in the designated area may be more than one kilometre in a straight line from the point nearest to it in Parliament Square. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I understand his preference to use the old ways of defining distance rather than metres. I have that prejudice myself. However, in this we have to move with the times, and it would be more appropriate to remain in kilometres.
	I can assure the House that the Government intend to lay an order on the precise area to be covered. We intend to consult with the Metropolitan Police on this area so that it covers the area where the demonstrations that disrupt the work of Parliament and hinder access to the House take place. In this Bill we do not want to restrict unnecessarily the area that will be covered.
	As I indicated yesterday, we are aware of concerns about the designated area taking in Trafalgar Square, a matter which has been raised in this House on a number of occasions. The House can be assured that in exercising the order-making power we shall ensure that Trafalgar Square is excluded. As a result, demonstrations could continue there without the need for prior notification from the commissioner.
	The nature of a demonstration may well change during the course of the demonstration, and as such it is entirely appropriate that the senior officer on the ground should be able to vary the conditions to reflect the changing conditions. That is already the case. Under the Public Order Act, in the case of processions, the senior officer on the scene could attach additional conditions in certain circumstances; for example, if there is a serious threat of disorder. So that is not a new change; it merely confirms the position that has existed for some time.
	I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on timing. The Government have responded to the concerns expressed about the requirement to give at least six days' notice of any demonstration. In Committee yesterday, the House agreed an amendment that recognises that there should be provision for a shorter period of notice—24 hours—in exceptional circumstances. For example, a demonstration may be organised as a response to an event that could not be foreseen, precisely as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. An important issue could spring up at very short notice and it would be important to demonstrate about it. This provision allows that to take place in a way that is proper.
	The Government believe that the notice period is an essential part of these provisions, so that the commissioner is able to consider the circumstances of the demonstration and its likely effect on the work of Parliament and the security of the area around it. He can then set conditions that are appropriate and proportionate. The Government have recognised that there may be occasions when demonstrations are organised as a response to events that, as I said, could not have been foreseen. We have therefore shortened the notice in response.
	So what we have done both on the ambit of the designated area and the notice period is to respond in what we hope is a positive and sensible way to the concerns that have been properly expressed. I make it clear that it is no part of the Government's intent to restrict the proper demonstrations that should continue to occur on those matters about which the public feel strongly. That is a fundamental part of our democracy, of which we are justly proud.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for what she said and indeed for her reference to Trafalgar Square, which I mentioned on Second Reading. She made a very eloquent and reasonable defence of the position of the commissioner, and I accept that what she said is correct. The Government are very fortunate to have the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to argue their bad case.
	I was, however, particularly concerned about the supplementary provisions, which among other things refer not to "a serious disturbance to the life of the community" but only to "any disturbance to the life of the community". I used the word "capricious" because those words are so wide and go so far beyond what is provided in the Public Order Act that the nature of the demonstration will allow far more of those supplementary provisions to be relevant.
	However, in view of the lateness of the hour and my sense that it is a fairly empty House, it would be inappropriate to press the issue to a Division. So, with great sadness, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 138 [The designated area]:
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
	Clause 141 [Anti-social behaviour orders etc: reporting restrictions]:

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Leave out Clause 141

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this amendment has the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine. We spoke at some length to this matter yesterday but the Minister did not address two issues in reply. I therefore wish to raise them again.
	The issue relates essentially to the proposal in Clause 138 to reverse the presumption on withholding from the public the identity of a child accused of breaching an ASBO. The current legislative presumption that a child subject to criminal proceedings should not be identified enshrines the principle of Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It states:
	"State parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society".
	The convention goes on to state that the states parties shall ensure that children alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law shall have the guarantee that their privacy will be fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. We ask whether naming and shaming individuals is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I strongly support the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, relating to the convention. Last night I mentioned the issue of scrutiny. While much of the Bill was scrutinised in the other place, this aspect of it received no consideration there. We had an occasion to discuss it late last night but, given that those on the front line are so concerned about the Government's current agenda of improving services for children and giving more thought to the needs of those who work directly with children, we should give the matter careful consideration and listen to those concerns.
	Last night I raised the issue of research into the impact of publishing the names of these children—a practice that has been going on for several years. When the Anti-social Behaviour Bill passed through this House, I urged the Minister to produce research into the consequences of that activity. At the time, I believe that the Minister replied that it would be too difficult to carry out such research, and she repeated that in her response last night.
	I am also concerned at the division that such a practice might provoke among agencies working together to improve outcomes for children. I shall come to that later.
	I reflect on my experience of being responsible for the type of children covered by this clause. I remember 20 years ago working in an intermediate treatment centre with a 10 year-old traveller boy. He would hit all the workers and, to ingratiate himself, would tell obscene jokes about his mother to the older boys—he was by far the youngest in the centre. He was a deeply troubling and deeply troubled young man.
	I think of a boy with whom I worked last year—a 10 year-old, who got into fights with other children. One lunchtime, we came across him lolling in a tyre-shaped inflatable, rocking himself backwards and forwards like an infant. It was only towards the end of our time working with him that we learned that he had just come out of care and had been newly adopted.
	I think of a young man with whom I worked recently who had just come out of his minority. He demanded attention from all the staff and young people in the hostel and made himself deeply unpopular. He was eventually excluded from the hostel but fortunately he has found another place.
	Those are the kinds of young people whom we are discussing now. As the noble Baroness herself made clear in a conversation that we had on this subject, she recognises that many of the young people whom we are discussing and who will be caught by this clause are the kind of young people to whom I have referred. In its evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Skills in the other place, the Association of Chief Police Officers said that it was important to recognise,
	"that children who commit offences, without excusing them or trying to defend them, are exactly the same constituency as children who get excluded from school, children who become in need of protection or have CAMS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] needs".
	Last night, the noble Baroness spoke of the difficulties of research in this area. I recognise that it can be difficult to conduct such research where there are a number of interventions with these children and their families and where there are parenting orders and so on. Nevertheless, if we are to encourage the local media to publicise the identities and photographs of these children—we have been doing so for several years now—it is incumbent on us, if we really believe that every child matters, to conduct as rigorous research as we can to find out what happens as a result.
	I was pleased to be put in touch by the Minister with one of her civil servants to ask about research. He told me that the Youth Justice Board will shortly undertake some research in this area. So I urge the Minister to wait until we know better what the impact of the very controversial publication of these children's names would be before proceeding on this matter. I share the concerns of those outside that, if these children and their families are identified, they may become the targets of people in the local area. I am concerned that labelling them in this way may reinforce some of the bad behaviours that we are seeing and that it may impact on the children's rehabilitation.
	We need research, but that has not been forthcoming. There is a possibility of it taking place in the future—fairly soon, I hope. So let us wait until the outcome of that research is available to us and to the courts which have to make decisions in this area. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what was said last night; I just want to make one point. Since the mid-19th century, people concerned with the welfare of children have been working towards enshrining in law measures for their protection. One aim of the campaigners has been that the identity of children in court, children in trouble and children from problem families should not come into the public domain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said last night, protecting the privacy of children has always been a basic principle of the youth court and, before that, the juvenile court. We frequently hear in the media about, for example, a 16 year-old who cannot be named for legal reasons, and we accept that that is how the law works.
	That principle has become fundamental when dealing with youths in trouble, and there are reasons for that. One is that they may be exposed to danger by hounding, vilification or violence, and another reason is that they should enter adulthood without carrying with them a bad reputation which they gained before they were of an age to be deemed fully responsible.
	Those principles are enshrined in United Nations treaties, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reminded us, and accepted throughout the world. Yet, here we are discussing a Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill—not policy about children, youth crime, youth courts, neighbourhoods or any relevant topic—and, without proper discussion and without any substantial analysis, we propose to throw in the rubbish bin the received wisdom of all those who care for the rights of children and who fought for them for nearly two centuries. In my view, we should not be doing that; we should certainly not be doing it without giving it a great deal more thought than we are in relation to this Bill. I support the amendment.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I rise briefly to add my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and also to add one extra point in support of my noble friend Lady Stern and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	At present, in areas such as parts of Merseyside and the Wirral, there are populations of children who will fit into the description of children who, if this law comes into being, will be named and shamed. At the moment, a great deal of effort is put into various agencies working together to try to prevent that. I fear that, if this legislation goes through, the various agencies will have less patience in relation to such children and there will be a tendency to say, "All right, we have given them sufficient time so let's put the law into effect by exposing them". I think that that would be a very dangerous practice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the anxiety about which the noble Lord, Lord Chan, speaks. I also understand the passion that causes the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and others to bring the issue to the fore. The plight of these very vulnerable and often damaged children is of the utmost importance. I want to make it absolutely clear that we understand that. However, we also recognise that, because of the nature and extent of their damage, many of those children are also damaging in the way in which they behave and in the threat that they may, from time to time, present. We have to recognise that there is a small cadre of children—it is not all of them—who fall into that group.
	As I said last night, the question is how we should respond to those children. Yesterday, I outlined the broad spectrum of interventions that noble Lords graciously agreed were helpful in ameliorating the level of dysfunction and addressing the needs of such children, which, I respectfully suggest, are perhaps greater than they have been for a very long time. The Government have invested considerable energy in ensuring that those better provisions are available.
	With regard to these measures, it is important that the courts and professionals who deal with such children understand the nature of the difficulties that they face and the broad spectrum of provisions that now apply to them. So the juvenile Bench, which has the proper training, will determine which cases should or should not have disclosure of identity. Professional judges, who have the skill, training and aptitude to deal with the cases, will judge the proportionate response to make.
	I understand the concern expressed, but the provisions are proportionate. They are entirely compatible with the convention to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia mentioned it. Two important safeguards ensure compliance with the terms and the spirit of the convention. The court will retain discretion to make reporting restrictions where it considers that such restrictions are necessary; for example, in the best interests of the child or in the interests of justice. As the order is generally subject to publication, there is no anonymity to protect in this context. I remind the House that the issue of publicity in such cases will have been dealt with at the making of the ASBO.
	The reason why we introduced the anti-social behaviour orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is well known. I remind your Lordships of a case. We believe that it is right for the community to know that an anti-social behaviour order has been granted, and in the case of Stanley v London Borough of Brent/Metropolitan Police Service in October 2004 it was accepted that ASBOs needed publicity to operate and that appropriate and proportionate publicity was compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. Equally, we feel that it is right that it is known what happens if one is breached, so that everyone is clear about the consequences of a breach. Otherwise the community will lose confidence in the system designed to protect it. However, we are mindful of the distinct issues that surround offenders who are under 18, as I have already made clear. That is why we have issued specific guidance on publicity and highlighted the fact that specific consideration should be given to the age of the individual perpetrators and whether they are vulnerable.
	We listened carefully to the concerns raised in the House during yesterday's debate. We intend to retain the clause, but we propose to address some of those concerns as follows. I make it plain that we believe that some of those concerns are proper concerns. We shall issue guidance via our Together website and a step-by-step guide on the operation of the new clause prior to its commencement. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, requested that yesterday in the Chamber. That guidance will make it clear that, in a breach case involving an under 18 year-old, although the presumption will initially be in favour of allowing publicity, the court must consider whether publicity was allowed when the anti-social behaviour order was initially granted. If it was not, then unless there has been a significant change in the intervening period, publicity should normally be refused. If publicity was originally allowed, it should again be allowed, unless the court directs otherwise. I hope that noble Lords will consider that a robust and proper response to a concern properly and judiciously expressed.
	We shall also ensure that the guidance clearly refers to welfare and safeguarding issues, so that they are in the mind of the court when it makes its decision. We believe that that provides a way forward that addresses the needs of the community and of the young offender in a reasonable, balanced and proportionate way. I urge your Lordships to retain Clause 141.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I accept and appreciate much of the Government's work on youth justice, but like the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, I still find it difficult to accept that a Bill that deals with serious crime should incorporate provisions for naming and shaming our children. That does not fit in the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, more research is vital. For that reason, it is right that we should put on record our concern. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 125.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 20:
	After Clause 152, insert the following new Clause—
	:TITLE3:"Disclosure of information about insurance status of vehicles
	(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with requiring MIIC to make available relevant vehicle insurance information to PITO for it to process with a view to making the processed information available for use by constables.
	(2) "Relevant vehicle insurance information" means information relating to vehicles the use of which has been (but no longer is) insured under a policy of insurance, or security in respect of third party risks, complying with the requirements of Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52).
	(3) The regulations may in particular—
	(a) require all relevant vehicle insurance information or any particular description of such information to be made available to PITO,
	(b) determine the purposes for which information processed from such information by PITO may be made available for use by constables, and
	(c) determine the circumstances in which any of the processed information which has been made available for use by constables may be further disclosed by them.
	(4) In this section—
	"information" means information held in any form,"MIIC" means the Motor Insurers' Information Centre (a company limited by guarantee and incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) on 8th December 1998), and"PITO" means the Police Information Technology Organisation."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in Committee yesterday I indicated in response to two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Simon that we would bring forward these amendments which effectively import into the Bill two clauses from the Road Safety Bill. As noble Lords will know, unfortunately that Bill did not survive the wash-up.
	The two new clauses will, first, enable the police to have access to insurance industry data relating to vehicles whose use is no longer insured; and, secondly, permit police to carry out an evidential breath test not only at a police station, but also at a hospital or at or near a place, such as the roadside, where a preliminary breath test has been administered. In the last of these situations the police constable making the requirement must be in uniform. I hope that will suffice. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have Amendment No. 22 in this group of government amendments, which is tabled as an amendment to Amendment No. 21. I believe that the whole group still stands. I look to the noble Baroness for guidance. I think the Table agrees with that. Therefore, I can go ahead.
	I apologise for taking time: the whole point of this was not to. As the noble Baroness said, yesterday, amendments were tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I and others added our names in support of those amendments to new clauses. When the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, introduced the amendment, he made clear that, at this late stage in the Bill, we anticipated that the whole point was that we should have further opportunity to debate these matters after an election, whatever government happened to occupy the government Benches then.
	The noble Viscount moved his amendment at 10.45 p.m. I added my support to that view at that late stage. The Government seized on that opportunity with a "whoopee" to put them into the Bill straight away. I cannot complain about that because I support the clauses, as did my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, but that highlights the difficulty that we have in wash-up—as has been noted earlier—because we rush through a large and important Bill of this nature with insufficient scrutiny. Although I and the noble Viscount support the clauses—naturally, the Government do—other Members of this House may not and are therefore denied the opportunity for detailed debate.
	I have therefore tabled Amendment No. 22 merely to ask the noble Baroness to put on record some reassurances about one aspect of a change to be made. In the past, whenever a breath test has been taken, the screening test—the first test, if I may put it that way—may be done at the roadside. The change is that the second, the evidential, test may now be taken by the roadside or at a hospital, instead of only at a police station. The noble Baroness looks pregnant with information.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Yes, my Lords, it was probably remiss of me. I really wanted to shorten this debate and I honestly confess to the noble Baroness that I had forgotten that this was the time for me to make a full explanation. I am happy to do that; I thought that, as we were all going to agree, it would go through quickly, but I apologise to her for failing to recollect that that was the purpose. If it will assist her, I will now go through how the provisions will operate, so that she does not have be put to the trouble of doing so herself.
	We have made the changes to the second new clause—powers to require specimens of breath at the roadside or at a hospital—in response to comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 13th report of Session 2004–05 about clauses in the Road Safety Bill that the committee considered to be at risk of incompatibility with Article 5 of the ECHR. The Government are grateful to the committee for its advice and are acting accordingly to deal with that matter.
	The effect of the changes is to modify the conditions under which a constable must release from detention a person who has been detained following a requirement to provide a specimen of breath, blood or alcohol. They require that a constable should be able to detain a person only if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person would commit an offence under Sections 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if released. The two amendments to Clause 177 are consequential on the insertion of those two new clauses.
	I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It may help if I explain that procedures for dealing with drink/drive cases are covered by a precisely worded set of documents, known as the MGDD forms, that can be found on the Home Office website. The key form includes the following passage, which it may be convenient if I read into the record:
	"As the specimen with the lower proportion of alcohol is in excess of the prescribed limit, but contains no more than 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, you may claim that it should be replaced by a specimen for a laboratory test. If you elect to provide such a specimen it will be of blood or urine which, in the case of blood, will be taken by a doctor (or health care professional) . . . You will be supplied with part of the specimen if you so require. The other part will be sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis. The result of the analysis of the laboratory specimen will replace the result of the breath test. Do you wish to provide a specimen for laboratory alcohol analysis?".
	The police, in conjunction with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, will adapt those forms to deal with the roadside and hospital circumstances for breath testing. I can assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the procedures to be undertaken at the roadside will be no less rigorous than those at the police station. The history of drink/drive law has been peppered with challenges in the courts. That is why Sections 4 to 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 have been amended only where absolutely necessary—and then with great care and attention.
	I hope that that will better explain to anyone who is not in the Chamber but able to read our proceedings later how the provisions will interact.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as this is Report, may I interpret that as a very helpful intervention from the noble Baroness, so that this is not my second speech on the same group of amendments? The best laid plans go awry, because I telephoned the noble Baroness's office first thing this morning to explain why I was tabling the amendment and that there was no hostile intent.
	I thank her for anticipating all the questions that I would have asked about my amendment and giving a more thorough and helpful explanation than may have been possible in another place on 25 January, when Standing Committee A was considering the Road Safety Bill. When we reach my amendment in the list, I shall not move it.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reintroducing the amendments that I tabled last night and for correcting my errors and omissions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Insert the following new Clause—
	:TITLE3:"Power to require specimens of breath at roadside or at hospital etc.
	(1) Section 6D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (preliminary tests for drink and drugs: arrest) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) The fact that specimens of breath have been provided under section 7 of this Act by the person concerned does not prevent subsection (1) above having effect if the constable who imposed on him the requirement to provide the specimens has reasonable cause to believe that the device used to analyse the specimens has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person."
	(3) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) A person arrested under this section may, instead of being taken to a police station, be detained at or near the place where the preliminary test was, or would have been, administered, with a view to imposing on him there a requirement under section 7 of this Act."
	(4) Section 7 of that Act (provision of specimens for analysis) is amended as follows.
	(5) For subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) A requirement under this section to provide specimens of breath can only be made—
	(a) at a police station,
	(b) at a hospital, or
	(c) at or near a place where a relevant breath test has been administered to the person concerned or would have been so administered but for his failure to co-operate with it.
	(2A) For the purposes of this section "a relevant breath test" is a procedure involving the provision by the person concerned of a specimen of breath to be used for the purpose of obtaining an indication whether the proportion of alcohol in his breath or blood is likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
	(2B) A requirement under this section to provide specimens of breath may not be made at or near a place mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above unless the constable making it—
	(a) is in uniform, or
	(b) has imposed a requirement on the person concerned to co-operate with a relevant breath test in circumstances in which section 6(5) of this Act applies.
	(2C) Where a constable has imposed a requirement on the person concerned to co-operate with a relevant breath test at any place, he is entitled to remain at or near that place in order to impose on him there a requirement under this section.
	(2D) If a requirement under subsection (1)(a) above has been made at a place other than at a police station, such a requirement may subsequently be made at a police station if (but only if)—
	(a) a device or a reliable device of the type mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above was not available at that place or it was for any other reason not practicable to use such a device there, or
	(b) the constable who made the previous requirement has reasonable cause to believe that the device used there has not produced a reliable indication of the proportion of alcohol in the breath of the person concerned."
	(6) In subsection (3) (circumstances in which requirement to provide a specimen of blood or urine may be made)—
	(a) in paragraph (b) (breath-testing device not available etc.) insert at the beginning "specimens of breath have not been provided elsewhere and", and
	(b) in paragraph (bb) (police station breath-testing device has not provided a reliable indication of alcohol level) for "at the police station" substitute "(at the police station or elsewhere)".
	(7) In section 8 of that Act (choice of specimens of breath) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) If the person who makes a claim under subsection (2) above was required to provide specimens of breath under section 7 of this Act at or near a place mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section, a constable may arrest him without warrant."
	(8) In section 9(1) of that Act (protection for hospital patients) for "for a laboratory test" substitute "under section 7 of this Act".
	(9) Section 10 of that Act (detention of persons affected by alcohol or a drug) is amended as follows.
	(10) In subsection (1) (detention at a police station)—
	(a) for "until it appears to the constable" substitute "(or, if the specimen was provided otherwise than at a police station, arrested and taken to and detained at a police station) if a constable has reasonable grounds for believing", and
	(b) for "not be committing" substitute "commit".
	(11) In subsection (2) (grounds for detention) for "A person shall not be detained in pursuance of this section if it appears to a" substitute "Subsection (1) above does not apply to the person if it ought reasonably to appear to the".
	(12) After that subsection insert—
	"(2A) A person who is at a hospital as a patient shall not be arrested and taken from there to a police station in pursuance of this section if it would be prejudicial to his proper care and treatment as a patient.""
	[Amendment 22 is an Amendment to Amendment 21.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
	Clause 177 [Short title and extent]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
	Clause 177, page 135, line 5, leave out "152," and insert "(Disclosure of information about insurance status of vehicles),"
	Page 135, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Power to require specimens of breath at roadside or at hospital etc.),"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to SOCA]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Schedule 4, page 155, line 35, at end insert—
	:TITLE3: "Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)
	(1) Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is amended as follows.
	(2) The existing text of that section is to be subsection (1).
	(3) After that subsection add—
	"(2) Subsection (1) above applies in relation to a vehicle being used—
	(a) for Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes, or
	(b) for training persons to drive vehicles for use for Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,
	as it applies in relation to a vehicle being used for police purposes.
	(3) But (except where it is being used for training the person by whom it is being driven) subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above unless it is being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds.""

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is an important amendment that will allow SOCA to be included in the provisions that exempt police, fire and ambulance vehicles from speed limits, where it is necessary in pursuit of their functions. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which makes that exemption, will not automatically extend to SOCA as the agency will not be a police body pursuing police purposes. Noble Lords may recognise that similar provisions were included in the Road Safety Bill. They have therefore enjoyed previous scrutiny and debate. However, as that Bill will not receive Royal Assent in the current session, it is essential that we make provision for that exemption in the SOCA Bill. There are safeguards inherent in the amendment that will limit the exemption to SOCA staff who are carrying out the purposes of the agency and those who are undergoing training to do so. Furthermore, the exemption covers only those vehicles driven by someone who has had training to drive at high speeds. With those considerations, I invite noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wish to put to the noble Baroness some points sent to me today by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I am sure that she will find those points welcome; she will perhaps have to respond to them.
	The advisory council points out that, although the amendment is welcome as a specific response to one problem, the original clause in the Road Safety Bill had a wider remit. It applied to fire, ambulance and police services and other prescribed purposes. That has been omitted from the Government's new amendment—naturally, because this is not the Road Safety Bill. The noble Baroness said that that Bill had been drowned in the wash-up. It is hardly surprising, given the vast raft of Bills that the Government introduced in the Queen's Speech knowing full well that they could not get through. Indeed, their own noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, in the latest edition of The House Magazine, trumpeted broadly the fact that everybody knew that the Government had done that knowing that a load of Bills would fail. Here is such an example, but we have managed to salvage something, on which all-party agreement has been reached, to tuck into this Bill, which looks as though it will have a safe passage today.
	The advisory council says that it would be very helpful if the Minister could give a reassurance that if this particular Government—I have changed its wording to include the word "particular"—were in office and intended to return to such matters, they would look at the wider issue after the general election. I can certainly give an undertaking from these Benches that we would do that if we were in a position to do so.
	I agree with the organisation that there is widespread concern about the number of road users who have become casualties as a result of police vehicles involved in incidents while carrying out statutory duties. The original clause would have ensured proper and adequate training for police, ambulance and fire service personnel driving vehicles at high speed. I agree that that should not be overlooked in future legislation. I invite the noble Baroness to give the appropriate reassurances.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has spoken for me. I was approached very early this morning by ACPO with exactly the same concerns. The noble Baroness has spoken to them very well and I have nothing further to say, apart from the fact that those are the concerns of ACPO also.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to give noble Lords satisfaction. I remind the noble Baroness that it would have been open to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to agree to all our Bills because they were all very meritorious and needed. I remind her that, in 1992, when this Government were unfortunately in opposition, we were very gracious in agreeing to legislation such as the Charities Bill and the Museums and Galleries Bill. They all went through because they were merited. But the noble Baroness knows that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition are more timorous about what is in the interests of the citizens of this country.
	I can assure the noble Baroness that, if we are re-elected, we will certainly seek an appropriate legislative opportunity to bring back what was Clause 18 of the Road Safety Bill. It is clearly right that all emergency service personnel are properly trained if they are authorised to drive at high speed. I am very happy to give that assurance as regards when this Government come back.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I now come to what many will see as the most pleasurable part of this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

A noble Lord: Oh!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Oh dear, my Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Bill read a third time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I now have the pleasure that I sought precipitately a moment ago. Before doing so, I thank all those who have worked so hard to ensure that the Bill has a safe passage. I pay tribute to the work of those on all sides of this House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and Members on the Cross Benches. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to give my particular thanks to the Bill team, which has worked extraordinarily hard to ensure that all of us, including noble Lords opposite, have the sort of support to enable us to make good and judicious decisions on the matter. We all, I am sure, wish this Bill Godspeed. I have therefore great pleasure in begging to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we are also keen to see the end of this Bill; it is the honest experience of those who had been expecting four days in Committee but find ourselves with two days for the passage of the whole Bill.
	I echo the Minister's thanks, particularly to the Bill team, which, throughout a difficult time on this Bill, has ensured that all of us have been better informed than perhaps would otherwise have been possible. It has meant that sometimes we have not needed to table amendments that would have taken up the time of the House. Particularly because of the difficulties of timetabling, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office, which has ensured that advance Marshalled Lists have been available and has kept us all sane through difficult times.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I endorse those remarks and add my thanks to the Minister in the other place, who came along to brief us on some matters. I am most grateful, as it made the work that much easier.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time.

Appropriation Bill

Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill and read a first time.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House. Once we get into Committee it will be inappropriate to make general remarks about the Bill. Therefore, this is the only opportunity to do so. I shall not take more than a few moments of the House's time.
	These attenuated procedures in which we find ourselves are all very well but they are attenuated. We should realise that there are people outside this place who are very disappointed that the Bill is going through this procedure. As I said at Second Reading, it is a seductive Bill, but it could be much better. There are those outside who wish that the Bill had been stopped so that it could have been brought back and given full, detailed attention. So be it. We made our concerns plain at Second Reading. I thank the Minister for the very full letter that he sent to us all after that stage; it certainly helped with the necessary background information.
	I am not sure whether I found it satisfactory that the biggest source of funding for the cost of the Bill, which is still largely uncosted, is savings that are yet to be made. That is a peculiar approach. A number of other matters which we shall not consider today still cause us concern. I have received representations on lighting—one of the subjects whose interested parties had hoped the Bill would be given proper consideration—and the Outdoor Advertising Association, which is concerned that it might be caught by fly-posting.
	We have particular concerns still on the adequacy of resourcing the transfer of responsibility for dogs from the police service to local government, although the Minister has given me an assurance that that transfer has to be made by order and cannot be made without the agreement of the Local Government Association. Therefore, one hopes that the matter will be cleared.
	We still have concerns about fly-tipping. The Minister has given assurances that landowners who are in no way involved in fly-tipping have the same defence that exists under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as has always existed. That is all very well, but the landowner can still be left with high costs. If no one has responsibility for clearing up fly-tipping and the landowner likes to keep his land tidy, in the end he is the one who pays the bill, which sometimes can be very hard. A possible alternative, of course, would be for him to dump what is fly-tipped on his land on the roadside verge, at which point the Act would intervene.
	There are a number of concerns about the Bill, which means that, good though the Bill is, it ought to have gone through the full procedure. The Government have taken their decision to go the country. We have to live with that. I have intervened at this stage simply because I cannot do so appropriately later. We will do what we can to co-operate with the rest of the procedures today. The Minister was warned that I intended to say something, for which I hope he will forgive me.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I confess that I had intended saying a few brief things on the first amendment; that is, until I felt that the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench was glowering at me too much. Then I would have sat down. This is probably a more appropriate time.
	This is not the most momentous Bill before the House in this wash-up. Some people may think that it is not very important and can therefore just be nodded through. In practice, the Bill may have a more direct effect on the lives of ordinary people than many of the far more momentous things that we talk about that might affect some people very greatly. This Bill will affect almost everybody. It is about the quality and the maintenance of their own neighbourhood, their own area, their own countryside and so forth.
	It is an important Bill. To that extent I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It is a real shame that we have been unable to go through it and worry out clause by clause how it will affect people in the streets, villages and so on, but we cannot, and that is all there is to it. Given that we cannot, it is right that the Bill should go through in its present form, particularly with the two or three helpful amendments that the Minister will move.
	The more I look at the British constitution and the way in which it works, the more I think that it is not so much pragmatic as a sort of Heath Robinson job held together by antiquated ceremonial—I do not include the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in either of those descriptions.
	We have what we have in front of us. I, too, thank the Minister very much for the careful consideration and replies that he has given to all of us who raised perhaps more detailed questions at Second Reading than we might have done, knowing that we might get into this situation.
	The only issue on which I still have nagging doubts is the gating provisions and whether, particularly in areas such as Pennine towns and villages, they could be used to block off legitimate access to countryside walks and footpaths. That is the only set of answers given by the Minister that I am not too happy about, and I shall follow that up in correspondence later. Apart from that, we are here to do a job of work which will not take long. So let us get on with it.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the tone in which those two interventions were made, although the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, ranged rather widely to include the constitution and the Prime Minister's choice of election date: far be it from me to comment on either of those.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the Bill will affect, for the better, a lot of people's lives, even in its present form. Any legislation can no doubt be improved by scrutiny by the House, but the Bill is, of itself, valuable. Given the circumstances and the parliamentary timetable with which we are faced, it will be worthwhile legislation. The assurances that I have tried to give in the letter and at Second Reading have met many of the points raised. However, there will be other points, including gating, and the responsibilities for clearing fly-tipping waste, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to which the House will need to return at some point. In the mean time, I hope that the assurances that I have given give sufficient security for the House to pass the Bill today, subject to the amendments to which I will now turn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Hooper) in the Chair.]
	Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Exposing vehicles for sale on a road]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 74, line 32, after "from" insert "relevant"

Lord Whitty: The amendment will change the wording of Clause 3 to make it an offence to expose or advertise two or more motor vehicles on a road within 500 metres of each other, rather than, as the original Bill said, when they are parked on the same road. That deals directly with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at Second Reading, to which I think other noble Lords referred as well. It will ensure that the offence can be committed whether cars are parked on the same road, on different roads at a crossroads, where a series of roads come together or where one road changes its name. So long as they are within 500 metres of each other, we can now take action to stop the use of the highway for a sales pitch. I think that that is the desired outcome we were all seeking, and I ask the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the amendment, which does exactly what I asked for at Second Reading and which I think was also raised in the House of Commons. I assure the Minister that the problem is one on which some of us will report back very soon with regard to whether the provisions are working or not.

Baroness Byford: At Second Reading, I raised the question of what was and what was not a road. Can the Minister give us slightly greater clarity on that? In country areas where people do exactly the same thing but are half-parked on the verge, or on the verge in what I call "old spa towns", will that be covered in guidance or whatever the Government introduce? I raised the issue at Second Reading, and I would be grateful for clarification.

Lord Whitty: The provision relates to the highway, which includes the pavement to the highway, but it would not include grass verges, as I tried to make clear at Second Reading. That is partly because the nature of ownership and the status of verges varies considerably, and we have had to stick with the definition of the highway. It relates to roads, pavements and their equivalent but not most grass verges.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may raise the issue again with the Minister because it could be a problem in villages where the same sort of action could take place. This is just a nudge to ask whether it is something that the Minister could consider in the longer term. Obviously, we are running out of time with the Bill, but it is equally irritating, if you live in a rural village, to have it spoilt by people doing exactly the same as they do in towns. Just because a verge is not considered a highway does not seem to be adequate grounds for not trying to do something about it.

Lord Whitty: I can undertake to look at this again, but it is quite complex because of the status and ownership of the land. What might be regarded from any common-sense point of view as grass verges in some villages I can think of reveal complexities in ownership. Substantial problems could arise in dealing with those issues. While I take the point made by the noble Baroness, I do not think that I would be able to deal with it within the context of this clause, even if we had the time. I hope that the noble Baroness will take my assurance that I will look at the matter again for the future.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 4 to 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Litter offence: fixed penalty notices]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 17, line 8, leave out "specifying standards under subsection (5)(b) above" and insert "discharging its functions under this section"

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised this concern in relation to the provisions on fly-tipping. Indeed, at Second Reading several noble Lords were concerned that litter clearing notices might be used by local authorities to require occupiers or landlords to clear fly-tipped waste from their land. They feared that this would circumvent the safeguards for occupiers and landowners set out in Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which gives such a power to enforcement agencies in the case of fly-tipped waste, but contains a defence that the occupier did not himself deposit or knowingly cause or permit the deposit of the waste. As I made clear in my response to the debate, it would not be appropriate to use this clause in those circumstances because it relates to litter clearing notices rather than fly-tipped waste.
	We will make that clear in guidance and, if accepted, this amendment will put that guidance on a statutory basis. It will require principal litter authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales in relation to any aspect of the discharge of their functions in respect of litter clearing notices under new Section 92A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which will be introduced by this clause. Currently the clause allows guidance to be given only in relation to standards that may be specified in a notice for the clearance of litter or refuse from the land.
	I shall clear up any remaining confusion about the powers under Clause 50, to which cross-reference was made at Second Reading, in relation to removing fly-tipped waste. As I said, Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 enables the enforcement agencies to require an occupier who knowingly allows his land to be used for fly-tipping to remove the fly-tipped waste. Clause 50 will extend this power to landowners, but only in the situation where there is no occupier. In addition, the occupier—and under Clause 50 the landowner as well—will still have the defence that I referred to under Clause 59 of the Environmental Protection Act that they did not knowingly cause or permit the deposit of waste.
	The change will help the enforcing authorities to bring irresponsible landowners within the remit of legislation without penalising the victims of fly-tipping. It will help deal in particular with problems that have occurred in urban areas where sites with no occupier, but clearly a landowner in the form of an absentee landlord, are used as illegal waste dumps. Such landlords are not covered by the present provisions, and in effect such a landlord has allowed his land to be used as an illegal waste dump and is thus the target of this clause. However, the defence of not knowingly having permitted land to be used is still valid and, indeed, is extended to the landowner. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: This is a welcome clarification. The fact that the authority must have regard to the guidance, which the Minister has assured us will be appropriate to meet our concerns, relieves us all. While I support the amendment, my only remaining concern is that situations can arise where waste is fly-tipped, but no one will clear it up because the landowner has committed no offence and the occupier either cannot be found or has also committed no offence. Nevertheless, the waste has been dumped and has to be dealt with. I fear that that will be a continuing residual problem and there is real concern that the liability will fall on the responsible landowner who wishes to keep his land in a fit state.
	The alternative is for every landowner to erect along his boundaries with the highway a six or eight-foot high fence that is deer-proof and proof against people tipping anything over it. That would not improve the look of the countryside.

Baroness Byford: I have already spoken to the Minister, who was kind enough to write to me following our debate at Second Reading in a letter dated 4 April. Since this is the only way I can ensure that it is put in the public record, I have had the Minister's approval to read out the section dealing with the issue. It is an important matter and should be recorded. Pieces of paper related to the Bill sadly can get lost. I am grateful to the Minister, who in his letter addresses litter clearing notices and fly-tipped waste:
	"There was significant debate during Second Reading about the differences between clause 20, on litter clearing notices, and clause 50, which provides a power to require the landowner to remove fly-tipped waste.
	"It may be helpful if I explain the background to litter clearing notices. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities can designate areas as litter control areas if they consider that they are defaced by litter. Within such areas, occupiers of land that is accessible to the public have a duty to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. If they fail to do so, the local authority can issue a litter abatement notice requiring them to clear the land, and also to prevent it becoming defaced again by litter and refuse. Refusal to comply with a litter abatement order is an offence.
	"The system has not worked well, as local authorities have found it complicated to use. It is not well suited to dealing with isolated problems and does not cover land that is not accessible to the public. It is thus not possible currently to deal with, for example, gardens of unoccupied houses, building sites and waste ground, all of which can be heavily degraded by litter and refuse, with adverse effects on the amenity of the surrounding area.
	"To remedy these effects, Clause 20 gives local authorities a power to issue litter clearing notices in respect of any land (other than land which another agency already has a statutory duty to keep clear of litter); this will require the occupier (or, if none, the owner) of the land to clear it of litter and, where appropriate, to take steps to prevent it from becoming heavily littered again. Litter clearing notices will be much simpler to use than the existing arrangements, doing away with the two-tier litter control area and litter abatement notice system and enabling local authorities to deal immediately with areas of land that are seriously defaced with litter. They will also be simpler to enforce, with the option of using fixed penalty fines, and will enable local authorities to specify standards of compliance.
	"Litter clearing notices are intended to deal with litter that accumulates over time in one place. They thus differ from the provisions of section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which addresses the problem of illegally deposited waste—fly-tipping. Among other things, it enables the enforcement agencies to require an occupier who knowingly allows his land to be used for fly-tipping to remove the fly-tipped waste. Clause 50 of the Bill will extend this power to landowners where there is no occupier. This will help to deal with problems that have occurred, particularly in urban areas, where there is no occupier and an absentee landlord is allowing his land to be used as an illegal waste dump. The defence that an occupier (and now landowner) did not knowingly cause or permit the deposit of waste will remain. This change will help the enforcing authorities bring irresponsible landowners within the remit of legislation, without penalising the victims of fly-tipping".
	The letter continued:
	"During the debate a number of speakers asked why the defence in section 59 of the EPA was not being extended to clause 20. This is because, in the situations litter clearing notices are designed to address, there is no suggestion that the occupier has consented to their land becoming covered with litter. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect occupiers to take steps to ensure that their land is kept free of large amounts of litter. Land that is covered in litter can degrade a whole neighbourhood; litter is blown onto other land, more littering and other types of anti-social behaviour is encouraged, and the environmental quality of the area is reduced. The law recognises that nuisances that affect other people need to be controlled, and litter, together with land covered in litter, is such a nuisance. While we encourage tough action against those dropping litter, owners and occupiers also have responsibilities.
	"I can confirm what I said in the debate, namely that litter clearing notices are not intended to be used to deal with fly-tipped waste, and it would not be appropriate for local authorities to use them for this purpose. The only exception will be for small-scale fly-tipping where, for example, a bag of rubbish is left on land that is already heavily littered. We would certainly not expect litter clearing notices to be used to deal with large scale instances of fly-tipping. We will be making this clear in the guidance we will issue, and to strengthen this I have tabled an amendment to sub-section 7 of clause 20"—
	which we are now debating—
	"that will put this guidance on a statutory basis; the amendment requires principal litter authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State (or the National Assembly in Wales) in discharging their functions under clause 20".
	I apologise for that rather long submission but it is important that landowners should understand the commitment that the Government have given. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to read out his letter and for bringing forward the amendment today.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for reading the letter. It will be very helpful to have it in Hansard.
	The only point I wish to make is that whichever party forms the government of this country after 5 May—it may be us; who knows?—I hope that it will produce the necessary guidance quickly. The powers in relation to fly-tipping and littered land in urban areas are very important and the sooner local authorities have those powers the sooner they will be able to tackle some of the eyesores that exist at the moment. These are proving intractable for the reasons set out by the Minister.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I am still not very relaxed about Clause 20. I have a series of questions—most of which probably reflect my ignorance of the way in which these things work—about which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me.
	First, what is the legal difference between littering and fly-tipping? In other words, what clarity do I have, as a farmer whose land has been despoiled by a visitor to the countryside, that the mess created falls under Clause 50, of which I approve, or under Clause 20, of which, in its current form, I do not?
	The Minister has kindly agreed to provide statutory guidance to local authorities but I remain slightly unconvinced by that route. Without the guidance being on the face of the Bill, what is to prevent the "appropriate person", or a future "appropriate person", changing the guidance without Parliament having a say? To what extent will the guidance become an implicit part of the Act? As I said, these questions are based on ignorance of the way in which these things work.
	My last question is a probing one. It seems from the answers that we have so far received that Clause 20 is specifically directed at the urban environment and at land which, when littered, creates a nuisance—an effect which may devalue people's property or damage the quality of their lives. I get the impression that the Government do not intend it to apply to farmers—or to anyone in a rural situation for that matter. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that.
	If that is the case, could not the Government agree to an amendment to Clause 20? At page 16, line 33, proposed new Section 92A(1) states:
	"A principal litter authority may in accordance with this section serve a notice . . . in relation to any land in its area which is open to the air".
	I would look to see added to that,
	"and is within the curtilage of a domestic or business property which is contiguous to other property not in the same ownership".
	I apologise for suggesting a verbal amendment but the circumstances are quite strange in this wash-up Session. That, of course, may not be the exact wording, but I remain convinced that the clause needs to be more focused. Implicit in the Minister's letter is an acknowledgement that the Government have not yet got it right. I would prefer to see the clause amended rather than qualified by "easier-to-adjust" statutory guidance.

Lord Whitty: The problem with the non-amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is that there is no pre-existing definition of "litter" or "fly-tipping". Therefore, any definition would require lengthier amendments than the one that he informally proposed. But the guidance will clearly make the distinction, and that is the way in which we have approached this matter. The guidance, of course, will be augmented by my assurances, both at Second Reading and today, and, indeed, by the parts of my letter read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. She clearly regards me, on occasions, as much more convincing in writing than in person in the House.
	We are dealing with two different kinds of litter. It is not rural against urban or open land against curtilage land, but there are different kinds of litter. That will be made clear in the guidance, which, in the circumstances of the structure of the Bill and pre-existing legislation, is the best we can do. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it is of course important that we introduce the guidance as rapidly as possible. We can then begin to ensure that local authorities follow the guidance and use these powers.
	As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in relation to placing a requirement on the local authority or Environment Agency to take responsibility for clearing fly-tipping, that is not in the Bill. No doubt, had we proceeded normally, amendments would have been brought forward in that regard. Of course, that would place a significant burden on local authorities or the Environment Agency and would raise a wide range of other issues, including resourcing. We have not thought it sensible to engage with such issues in the Bill.
	With that, I hope, clarification—the noble Baroness has helped me to get my words on the record—I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 21 to 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Extension of graffiti removal notices to fly-posting]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Whitty: I intervene simply to fulfil a commitment I made to clarify this in relation to questions raised on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The clause deals with fly-posting and fly-tipping. Concern has been expressed that the provision might allow removal notices to be used to require the removal of advertisements where there is a question of the advertisements' lawfulness as a result of the interpretation of regulations, for example, where an advertisement has deemed consent.
	However, the intention is that this power will be available only where the relevant surface has been defaced by a poster or flyer and the defacement is detrimental to the amenity of the area or is offensive. It is therefore unlikely that the provision could be used where there is a question of the lawfulness of the advertisement itself. That will, in any case, be made clear in statutory guidance so that local authorities should use this power only to target the visual blight and defacement caused by fly-posting, not to police the technicalities of, for example, the Town and Country Planning Act.
	Similar concerns have been raised in relation to Clause 34 that local authorities might use their powers under Section 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act where there are disputes over the planning status of otherwise legitimate adverts. The use of Section 225 would be completely inappropriate in such circumstances. We will also issue guidance and advice to local authorities so that it makes that clear. I hope that that clarification deals with the concerns raised.

Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clauses 32 to 100 agreed to.
	Clause 101 [Statutory nuisance: insects]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 74, line 32, after "from" insert "relevant"

Lord Whitty: On Second Reading, concern was expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Byford, that Clause 101 could have an adverse impact on biodiversity. The clause deals with insect nuisance and it was feared that naturally occurring concentrations of insects, on farm land in particular, might be regarded as a statutory nuisance. Similar concerns have been expressed to us by the conservation charity, Buglife.
	The intention of the clause is to deal with a nuisance which might be caused by sewage or sewage treatment works or other industrial activities. It was not intended to affect insects emanating from farmland, so we have tabled the amendment for clarification. It would exclude the types of land and water listed in it from the statutory nuisance regime in respect of insects. We are confident that the types of land will cover most farmland and open waters. There is also a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to exclude other types of land by way of regulation if there proves to be a problem.
	The amendment is intended to deal with unfarmed land such as that under certain agri-environmental schemes. It should be noted that types of land which are not business premises such as commons, which are not grazed, are not covered by the clause, since it extends the statutory nuisance regime in respect of insects only to industrial, commercial and business premises. I hope, therefore, that the exclusion of water and farmland meets the concerns which were expressed on Second Reading and since. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: Since the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is not here, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will follow me, I thank the Minister. This seemed a very minor point to raise but it was important, and I am grateful to the Government for coming back with the amendment which fills some of the gaps we could see in the Bill.

Lord Greaves: I agree with those comments. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who, unfortunately, is out of the country this week—she probably does not think it unfortunate, but I do—raised this on Second Reading, and my honourable friend Sue Doughty raised it in the House of Commons as well. As far as I can see, being a layman, this rather technical amendment seems to make sense, and I hope it does. We are therefore very happy to support it.
	In parenthesis, it occurred to me that this clause should be extended to Scotland. The Minister should be sent off to eradicate the highland midge. However, if he knew how to do that, he would be making a lot of money and not sitting here.
	We are happy to support the amendment and thank the Minister again for bringing it before us.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 74, line 38, at end insert—
	"(4) In subsection (7) at the appropriate place insert—
	""appropriate person" means—
	(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
	(b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales;".
	(5) After subsection (7B) (as inserted by section 102(6)) insert—
	"(7C) In this Part "relevant industrial, trade or business premises" means premises that are industrial, trade or business premises as defined in subsection (7), but excluding—
	(a) land used as arable, grazing, meadow or pasture land,
	(b) land used as osier land, reed beds or woodland,
	(c) land used for market gardens, nursery grounds or orchards,
	(d) land forming part of an agricultural unit, not being land falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c), where the land is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate person, or
	(e) land included in a site of special scientific interest (as defined in section 52(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981),
	and excluding land covered by, and the waters of, any river or watercourse, that is neither a sewer nor a drain, or any lake or pond.
	(7D) For the purposes of subsection (7C)—
	"agricultural" has the same meaning as in section 109 of the Agriculture Act 1947;
	"agricultural unit" means land which is occupied as a unit for agricultural purposes;
	"drain" has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1991;
	"lake or pond" has the same meaning as in section 104 of that Act;
	"sewer" has the same meaning as in that Act." "
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
	Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
	House resumed; Bill reported with amendments; Report received.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I thank the Opposition for their co-operation in the passage of the Bill and, possibly even more so, the Bill team for their patience and hard work.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a slightly sad occasion for me. The Minister and I have faced each other across the Table on numerous occasions. Regrettably, whatever the future may hold for all of us, I think this will be the last occasion on which I shall have the pleasure of facing him. I should like to place on record my thanks to him for the invariable courtesy and patience with which he has endured my attempts to enlighten him. Occasionally we succeeded, occasionally I thought I was making progress and occasionally I despaired. But that is the nature of the business that we undertake.
	It has been a great pleasure working with the Minister. I could not let the occasion pass without noting it and thanking him for the pleasure of his company.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am deeply touched, and I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. As he says, he and I have gone through a lot of legislation together. One thing I learnt very early on when I was dealing with local government legislation was not to do anything that seriously offends Essex. Even though I may have disappointed the noble Lord in other areas, I hope that in general I have managed to keep to that precept. I thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for their unfailing courtesy during the period in which we have faced each other. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who, regrettably, is in the Philippines. I have appreciated the relationship between the parties in the House in my term of office.
	I am sorry: I failed to see the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, at the back.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, Defra is a very wide brief, and I have been immensely impressed by the way in which the Minister has mastered that brief with great diligence. I thank him for that. It is obvious to us all that his breadth of knowledge on the great variety of topics that comes before us is very considerable. The whole House respects that, and I thank him for the assistance that he has given us—I speak from the Back Benches here—on all the Bills that have passed through in the time that I have been in here and before. Thank you very much indeed.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I have crossed swords and agreed on many different occasions, and I very much appreciate his helpfulness, kindness and generosity at all times—even though he has sometimes had me over a barrel, and I have had him over a barrel. I am very grateful.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have just learnt something that I did not know, and everything has become clear to me. Whoever wins the election on 5 May—even if it is us—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will no longer be a Minister and will have some spare time. I invite him to come and walk on some of our local moorland that could not be walked on before he steered his Bill through the House.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, many thanks to all of you, especially to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for that last point. I hope that we have done something to improve the quality of life, at least in some parts of the country. I have not received such widespread support from all corners of the House since I have been here. On my last-but-one day—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I perform again tomorrow—I thank all noble Lords who have recorded their thanks—my thanks again to them.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Drugs Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Proof of intention to supply a controlled drug]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dholakia: At Second Reading, I said that some aspects of the Drugs Bill caused us concern. I have no intention of seeking the opinion of the Committee on the matter, but I hope that the Minister, having listened to what I have to say, will be able to put on record some of my concerns.
	Clause 2 is the one that I feel most strongly about. We raised the matter in the other place, and we do so here as well. Let me explain my reasons. I see a number of dangers arising from Clause 2. Of course, there is an advantage as far as the police are concerned. It may reduce the amount of police time spent in court. The clause is trying to reverse the previous practice, whereby, on a charge of intent to supply, police had to bring in expert witnesses, normally drug squad officers. They would give evidence on what would constitute dealer quantities and what inferences could be drawn from the possession of certain other articles. It is possible that in making a presumption we would avoid the attendance of drug squad officers, particularly in summary cases. Although I see the attraction of that, it may not necessarily be an advantage.
	It is a big advantage to the drug squad officers to give evidence in court and to have the experience of being cross-examined by solicitors, advocates or barristers in a court. It keeps them sharp and allows them to build up expertise. I have spoken to a colleague involved in training police officers. In such cases, officers are then able to be used to much better effect on the big cases in the High Court, when it really matters.
	The real danger that I can see in the clause is on the practical side. I foresee that, with the best will in the world, busy police constables working in the streets will come across cases in which there is a substantial amount of drugs but that substantial amount falls short of the level that is prescribed by the Secretary of State by order. In those circumstances, the police officers will think, "Well, it is not a dealer quantity according to the regulation, so I will just charge him with simple possession".
	There is another downside. The provision will bring with it a laziness of attitude, which will mean that ultimately the community is not better served. I am concerned that if we operate with such a presumption, a busy constable in the street or a busy duty sergeant will take the attitude that, if the amount does not come up to the prescribed level, they will go for simple possession. By the time the matter is reported by the prosecuting authorities, the evidence that might have been there will no longer be there.
	I do not think that the provision achieves anything new. Existing case law says that simple possession of a substantial amount of drugs is sufficient for a court to infer intent to supply. There will be real difficulty for the Government when it comes to establishing what level of drugs will be stipulated in the order. The Minister says that there will be different levels for different drugs, which makes common sense. There will be different situations in different towns and cities. If we get the level wrong, the traffic of cases through the courts will be affected enormously. Given the geographical distances, I cannot see how we would get the issue right.
	If there were a real lacuna or gap in the law, the measure might be worth trying. However, the law as it exists is perfectly capable of dealing with all the issues if the police and prosecution services are given sufficient resources to give each case proper consideration and preparation before it goes to court. I suspect that, if there is a problem, it stems from lack of resources, and the provision will not help that. If anything it might make it worse. It is for those reasons that I oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Mancroft: I share some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which is why I added my name to the amendment on the Marshalled List.
	I noted the comments that the Minister made at Second Reading about how it would be possible to prescribe the amount of different drugs. Having read those comments carefully, I still say that they are pretty confusing. It would be extremely difficult to say which amounts were relevant. The Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs may be expert on drugs, but I am not certain it is expert on the amounts that people carry with them on the street. The issue is going to be difficult and will remain a grey area. We heard the Minister's comments on that.
	The area of the clause that particularly worries me is the part that says:
	"the court or jury must assume".
	There is no ability, if the amount prescribed is for some reason incorrect or the person is carrying an amount outside the prescribed limit for a reason that I cannot imagine now—perhaps none of us can—but there is no grey in this at all. There is no ability for the defendant to offer any mitigating circumstances. It is somewhat draconian to assume automatically that, because someone has a quantity of a drug, they are supplying it. I entirely understand what the clause is meant to achieve and recognise that there is some merit in it, but the drafting concerns me.
	I have been trying all day to come up with a suitable analogy, without a great deal of success. The only one that I can come up with, though obviously it is not right, is that we could imagine that one of your Lordships were going to France in your car to buy a car-load of wine. Clearly, none of us can drink a car-load of wine in one go—or I should hope not, anyway. If the same standard were to be applied to that example as applies in this clause, the fact that you were carrying more wine than you could possibly drink in one sitting would automatically mean that somebody would assume that you were a wine merchant, as the Customs used to a year or so back, and that you were going to sell it. That is of course completely ridiculous, and the same problem is caused by the wording of the clause.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My concern engages the diminution of the presumption of innocence, relating to Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As we said at Second Reading, this clause will effectively reverse the burden of proof for the offence, which means that the onus will be on the accused to prove that he did not intend to supply—that is, that he is not a dealer. Convictions for this offence generally attract considerably higher sentences than equivalent convictions for simple possession, and can also trigger the application of a minimum sentence on third conviction.
	Proof of an intention to supply therefore has very serious consequences for a defendant. We believe that evidential presumptions of this type should rarely be used in criminal proceedings, since they can water down the criminal standard of proof. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland has said that presumptions should not be used unless, having done so, the court would be left satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Justice suggests, in its briefing, that the House of Lords would take a similar approach should that be applied in England.
	I refer to Liberty's briefing on the clause, when it says:
	"Clause 2 undermines the traditional presumption of innocence at common law and due process rights under Article 6. Further, any alternative, human rights-compliant reading of the Clause would render it pointless. If an individual is to be convicted of intention to supply a controlled substance, the court should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this intention existed at the relevant time. In line with the 'golden thread' of English law, the presumption of innocence should be upheld, and the quantity of drugs in the possession of a defendant should continue to be only a factor in the consideration of a case".

Lord Rea: I was unable to be present at the beginning of the Second Reading of the Bill, so I could not speak then. If I had spoken, my speech would have echoed much of the critical stance that came through the speeches of most other noble Lords who spoke.
	The Bill has several defects, not only this one, however praiseworthy are the parts that aim to point drug-dependant people towards treatment. My noble friend Lady Scotland said, at Second Reading, that we should,
	"properly discharge our responsibility to scrutinise carefully the legislation that comes before the House".—[Official Report, 14/3/05; col. 1077.]
	That was in relation to this Bill. I could not agree more but, of course, for that we would need proper time between stages in which to do that very thing. I believe that the Bill should have been reintroduced after the election; it should have been withdrawn, and we could have had proper time to debate it later.
	The clause that we are debating is a good example of why the Bill needs such scrutiny. I agree with the points made by noble Lords who have spoken, advocating that this clause ought to be dropped.

Lord Cobbold: I support the point on the presumption of innocence raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and point out that I raised the same matter at Second Reading.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is right that we had a detailed discussion of this matter on Second Reading. I understand fully the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised. I hope that I shall be able to clarify some of those points for him so as to make him a little more satisfied that the way in which he would like the provisions to work is in fact the case.
	As noble Lords know only too well, the clause creates an evidential presumption of intent to supply when the defendant is found to be in possession of a particular amount of a controlled drug. The effect is that when the presumption applies, a court or jury must assume that the defendant intended to supply the drug in his possession. However, I invite noble Lords to cast an eye at the second part of Clause 2, because insufficient regard has been paid to it. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to new subsection (4A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but that must be read in conjunction with new subsection (4B), which says:
	"Subsection (4A) above does not apply if evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue that the accused may not have had the drug in his possession with that intent".
	So it is a rebuttable, not an absolute, presumption.
	The clause places an evidential presumption, rather than a legal burden of proof, on the defendant. The presumption is rebutted when evidence is adduced which raises an issue or arguable case that the defendant did not intend to supply the drugs in his possession. If such evidence is raised, the prosecution will be required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to supply the drugs in his possession.
	I know that noble Lords have expressed concern regarding the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that it was unable to reach a definitive view on whether the evidential presumption placed on defendants to an offence of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs was compatible with the convention. That was because the Joint Committee had not been informed of the prescribed amounts of drugs that would trigger the application of the statutory assumption. Those amounts will be provided in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	The Joint Committee has emphasised that the convention will require there to be a sense of proportion in the amounts which are prescribed by regulation, vis-à-vis the seriousness of the offence of possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. We are very mindful that any levels to be prescribed by regulations with a view to triggering the statutory assumption must be appropriate, reflect and be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
	We believe that consultation with a range of bodies which have expertise in the field of drugs is essential to ensure that the particular levels prescribed are appropriate. In another place, the Minister responsible for drugs undertook to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as well as a range of other people, including the Forensic Science Service, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Other bodies that will be consulted will include the Department of Health, the National Treatment Agency, the Association of Chief Police Officers, and non-governmental organisations working in the drugs field. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that that is important, because it deals with his point about where to draw the line between the users and abusers and those who actually enforce. We believe that we should listen to everyone on that matter, in order to get it right.
	Any levels prescribed by regulations must be debated by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. We consider that such consultation and debate will provide the necessary transparency and safeguards and will assist us in securing prescribed levels that are indeed proportionate. The need for the thresholds to be agreed by affirmative resolution of both Houses will give noble Lords the opportunity to scrutinise the thresholds which it is proposed to adopt. I anticipate that we will be in a position to bring forward such a resolution late in 2005 or early in 2006.
	To give an indication—and it is only an indication—of what these thresholds might be, the level set out in an informal agreement reached between one police force and the CPS locally regarding when a charge of possession with intent to supply is appropriate are: in relation to heroin, bulk 7 grams or more, or 10 separate 0.1 gram wraps or more; with crack cocaine, bulk 7 grams or more, or 10 separate 0.1 gram rocks or more; with cocaine, bulk 7 grams or more, or 10 separate 1 gram or 0.5 gram wraps; and ecstasy, 10 tablets or more. Finally, for cannabis resin the relevant figure is 112 grams or more or 10 individual pieces or more. For the leaf it is 0.5 kilograms or more or 20 individual bags or more. That gives an idea of what one police force has done to approach this matter. However, I need to make clear that when we tackle this matter it will not just concern local protocol. The process will take into account all the medical and other evidence and try to establish a measure that will apply right across the board.
	However, I should emphasise the importance that consultation will have regarding where we finally end up. The purpose of this clause is to achieve greater consistency right across the country on when a defendant is charged with possession with intent to supply; clarify the point at which the quantity of drugs in a person's possession becomes above and beyond that reasonably held for personal use; increase the success in convicting dealers and disrupt the activity of dealers. It is on that basis that I move that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Dholakia: I am perfectly happy with the explanation offered. I have no need to pursue the matter further.

Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Drug offence searches: England and Wales]:

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (5)

Lord Mancroft: For the Committee's convenience I should point out that Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 9.
	I was going to start by apologising for tabling these amendments so late last night that your Lordships did not get a sight of them until today—that was until I discovered that the government amendments were laid even later; this morning.
	I remind the Committee that we had Second Reading of this Bill on Monday as I believe that no one was aware that it was taking place. Only three Back-Benchers were able to speak and all three of them were pretty much opposed to the Bill. It was not at that stage moved into Committee; in fact, it was not referred to a Committee of your Lordships until a short while ago. I am not quite clear why we are now having to go through this because it is not exactly news that the election is coming. We have known about it for some time.
	I believe that I have never heard of a Bill coming through the wash-up stage—which is entirely a Front Bench process and nothing to do with us poor old foot soldiers on the Back Benches—that has not been at least moved into a Committee and has not had any scrutiny at all in this House. It is not an urgent Bill. If it was urgent, it should have come forward earlier in the Session. Therefore, it is rather undesirable for the noble Baroness to point out the desirability of having consultation. A number of organisations that I know well would have liked to offer briefing on this Bill. We Back-Benchers need and appreciate those briefings on many different subjects. However, we have not had the opportunity to receive those briefings on this Bill. It is an extremely unsatisfactory way to proceed on a controversial and difficult Bill.
	Clause 3(5) refers to the person—rather than defendant at this stage as he or she has not been charged—not being able to refuse what is called a "drug offence search" without good cause. Clause 3(5)(a) states that,
	"the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;
	(b) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application"—
	and, most importantly of all,
	"(c) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty . . . may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper".
	Therefore, I very shortly ask two questions. What is good cause? What inferences from the refusal appear or do not appear to be proper to draw? More importantly, how is the person to know what is good cause and what inferences can properly be drawn? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, confined his comments to a very narrow compass. Therefore, I shall respond in like terms. The real focus of Clause 3 is what the jury is supposed to infer.
	As the noble Lord knows, Clause 3 introduces in England and Wales—and Clause 4 similarly introduces in Northern Ireland—the requirement that the suspect's written consent is obtained prior to the intimate search being carried out. Detainees must be informed that an intimate search has been authorised and the grounds for it. The authorisation for the search, the grounds for it and the giving of the appropriate consent must be recorded in the custody record.
	The clause also allows a court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper should consent to an intimate search be refused without good cause. Where there is good cause, no such inference will be drawn. By way of example, a pregnant prisoner may well have good cause for refusing to consent to an intimate search. Cultural sensitivities will also be relevant when determining what constitutes good cause. Often it will be a question of fact which will pertain to the particular case. Similarly, some drug dealers will swallow drugs suitably wrapped upon their arrest to conceal evidence.
	Clause 5 with regard to England and Wales, and Clause 6 with regard to Northern Ireland, enable a police officer of at least the rank of inspector to authorise an X-ray or ultrasound scan of a person arrested for an offence where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has swallowed a class A drug which he had in his possession with intent to supply or with intent to export unlawfully. Any charge made by the National Health Service would be met by the police.
	We tabled a government amendment this morning. The relevant amendment that we tabled is only a technical amendment which related to the SOCA Bill and staff custody officers. We waited until the subject was discussed yesterday before tabling the amendment. Had the outcome of the SOCA Bill been different, our amendment would also have been different. We finished consideration of the SOCA Bill today. We had to wait until those issues were dealt with before tabling our amendment. All the matters that are before the Committee are properly before it in accordance with the matters outlined at Second Reading earlier this week.
	As with Clauses 3 and 4, Clauses 5 and 6 require that the suspect gives his written consent to an X-ray or ultrasound scan being carried out. The suspect must be informed that such a procedure has been authorised and the reason for that authorisation. As with Clauses 3 and 4, should a person withhold consent for such a procedure without good cause, a court or jury may draw such inferences as it sees fit. The whole purpose of Clauses 5 and 6 is to give the police an indication of the need to detain someone to allow drugs to pass through their body.
	The Committee will have noted that Clause 8 has some relevance to Clauses 5 and 6. It introduces the power for magistrates to remand into police custody for an extended period upon charge a person suspected of swallowing a drug. The purpose of Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 together is to enable those in possession of controlled drugs with the appropriate criminal intent to be brought to justice by deterring those who conceal them in a body cavity or swallow them from withholding consent for the appropriate procedure without good cause, and enabling courts and juries to act should they do so.
	Appropriate intent means for these purposes having possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply them or to export them unlawfully; in other words, the provisions are targeted at drug dealers not drug users. Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9 seek to remove the provision for courts and juries to draw such inferences as appear proper from a refusal without good cause. The effect would be to allow those seeking to conceal evidence of possession of a class A drug to do so by refusing consent to an intimate search, X-ray or ultrasound scan without consequence. Hence, it would maintain a loophole that the police have identified to us as one used by dealers to frustrate justice. It is for that reason that we cannot support the amendments.
	I hope that I have said enough to explain to the noble Lord why the provisions are proportionate, will be necessary, and can be dealt with perfectly properly.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, which was full and detailed as it always is. I am not certain still. I entirely understand the purpose, and I understand how the clauses both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland fit together, but I am not certain how a defendant would know that, or a person—we do not know whether they are a defendant yet. I am not sure how they would know, and I am not sure what the inferences are that were proper or improper. I will read with care what the noble Baroness said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 4, line 16, leave out "35B" and insert "35C"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These are technical amendments, which are a means of remedying the fact that by error both the SOCA Bill and the Drugs Bill were drafted to insert a new paragraph 35B into Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002. They ensure that the Drugs Bill inserts a new paragraph 35C after paragraph 35C inserted by the SOCA Bill, and no longer inserts a second paragraph 35B. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Drug offence searches: Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [X-rays and ultrasound scans: England and Wales]:

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 31 to 35

Lord Mancroft: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 with which it is grouped. The Minister has already referred to and described the purpose and the reason for X-rays and ultrasound examinations to be taken in hospital and also in a GP surgery or another place for medical purposes. This is a probing amendment. Can the noble Baroness tell us how this will work in practice? Will the police take the defendant or the person, if he still is a person, to a hospital accident and emergency department and ask him to queue up? What happens if a doctor or a nurse, who make their living caring for the sick, does not want to do the police's work for them? How will that work? Are people going to have to sit around for ages? Is the police doctor going to arrive with ultrasound equipment? It seems rather complicated, and it would be helpful if the Minister could describe how the Government foresee or envisage this rather complex process working. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord will know that in relation to these matters it is already the position that when X-rays and other procedures have to be arranged, practical arrangements are made and defendants undergo the tests without any difficulty at all. I take it that the noble Lord is referring to Amendment No. 10. The practical ability to do that has not been an issue at all in relation to the way in which that has been managed. I can certainly write to the noble Lord in relation to the practical matters, but in this Bill we are setting out the ability to do it, and those practical issues will be resolved between the relevant agencies in due course.

Lord Mancroft: I do not intend to press the amendment tonight, or to go any further with it, but it is a bit odd to put a complex procedure in a Bill and then not be able to explain how it will work. Bills all have practical consequences, and these are difficult areas. I tried to describe a situation that might happen. It does not apparently appear to be a problem, but my understanding from people who work in the field is that those matters are difficult and there are problems.
	They are particularly distressing for defendants and for their families, particularly when people find out in the end that they have been incorrectly charged. My understanding is equally that many medical care services are deeply unhappy at carrying out those procedures. That has been brought to my attention on several occasions. These are sweeping arrangements, which have not been looked at in detail.
	As I said, this is a probing amendment, but there is no doubt that that was not a satisfactory or helpful answer. In the mean time, sadly, due to the lateness of the hour and the importance of other business to come, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 6, line 39, leave out from "paragraph" to "the Serious" and insert "35B (inserted by paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 to"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 6, line 41, leave out "35B" and insert "35C"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 6 [X-rays and ultrasound scans: Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Initial assessment following testing for presence of Class A drugs]:

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Clause 9, page 11, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "is"

Lord Mancroft: My concern here is simple—if noble Lords read the top line of page 11:
	"An analysis of the sample reveals that a specified Class A drug may be present in the person's body".
	Clearly, if noble Lords read the rest of the clause and the subsections following, that is an important point. This clause allows police officers to require a person to attend an initial assessment and remain for its duration. On a purely practical point, that seems a little pointless if that person has not tested positive for class A drugs but merely might have done.
	I ask noble Lords to think about it in context for a moment. A person is arrested and not charged—which means he may not have done something wrong and he may not even have drugs in his body, because we still have "may" at the top—but he is still required to go for an initial assessment on the whim of the police officer. The criteria are fulfilled, and then he may even have a follow-up assessment. Assume that later he is found innocent of the original charge, or even that it is dropped, and it turns out that he has no class A drugs in him. He could still be guilty under this Bill and be imprisoned for 51 weeks or fined up to level 4 for failure to attend an assessment that he did not need, for drugs that he had not taken, after a crime that he did not commit.
	I accept that that will probably not happen, but it could all be avoided if one ensures in the wording of the clause that the drug test must be positive. I really do not see that in these difficult areas you can play with people's lives by leaving grey areas. There is a world of difference between a test that is positive and one that might be. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord is saying, but I assure him that he is being unduly pessimistic about how the provisions will work. The groups of amendments from Amendment No. 10 to Amendment No. 30 seek to reduce the impact of the provisions contained in Part 3 of the Bill, which require those who have tested positive—that is the most important thing, that they have tested positive for class A drugs—to attend an initial assessment and, where required, a follow-up assessment. That is the condition precedent. We are not talking about someone who has not taken the drug or has nothing to do with it; they must have tested positive if the process is to apply to them.
	If the amendments were accepted, the provisions would apply to fewer individuals and fail to target those who may only be starting on the road of drug misuse and crime. The noble Lord has an interest in making sure that those who have become or may become addicted to drugs have as early a point of reference to help and support as possible. The provisions very much help that to take place.
	Amendment No. 10 would mean that the analysis would have to reveal that a specified class A drug was actually present before a police officer could require a person to attend an initial assessment and stay for its duration. Let me explain what happens with a testing on charge under Section 63B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; we envisage that it will continue if Clause 7—it is on testing for the presence of class A drugs on arrest—is enacted.
	The technology used in the police custody suites is a screening tool and will reveal the presence of all opiates rather than the specified class A drug of diamorphine—heroin. That is because, currently, no test is available that can be economically and reliably used to test for heroin alone. It is therefore possible that, under the current testing regime, legitimate drugs within the opiate range such as codeine may be detected when using the on-site police custody test. However, should that be the case or if a person challenges the result, the test sample can be sent to the Forensic Science Service for a forensic analysis to provide a conclusive result using the "gold standard" test provided by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry—GC/MS.
	To accept the amendment would mean that all test samples would have to be sent for the further analysis before the requirement was imposed. That would be costly and delay the police imposing the requirement to attend an assessment for no obvious benefit. Currently, under the testing on charge, only 3 per cent of tests are challenged and sent for the further analysis. Of those challenges, only 4.4 per cent are upheld. We will issue guidance which provides that, where a person challenges the result of a drug test at the time of the test, the assessment will not be scheduled until after the results of the further analysis are received. Where the further analysis is negative, the obligation to attend the assessment will cease. That will prevent innocent people being assessed in the way in which the noble Lord fears.
	On the basis of that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mancroft: That was a helpful answer. There are sound reasons for encouraging people into early diagnosis; that is something that we have been trying to do across the board for a long time. The Minister is right that there are significant testing difficulties, and I am delighted to hear about the guidance. The guidance on the matter will be important. The Bill—admittedly, most people do not see it and will not see it when it becomes an Act—is not clear, but the answer that she gave us is extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 11, line 8, leave out "suitably" and insert "properly"

Lord Mancroft: I remind the Committee that the amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 15. The amendment's purpose is simple—to ask the Government what a suitably qualified person is. I confess to having a certain history on the matter, having spent about 10 years in the Department of Health trying to persuade it to get involved with the certification and qualification of drug counsellors. I regret to tell the Committee that they were not remotely interested and it had to be done by the voluntary sector, which I never thought entirely satisfactory.
	It is extremely difficult to know who is properly qualified. Too many people in this country who are not qualified in the way that we would desire are still practising. There is a history of poor diagnosis of addiction in this country. Virtually anybody can still set up as a counsellor by sticking a brass plaque on the wall and advertising. Who is suitably qualified to act in these processes is extremely important. We still have too much amateurish treatment, although the quality is rising rapidly. One would not want those not qualified to be involved. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the sort of criteria at which the Government will look to identify who is qualified to carry out these important matters. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand now why the noble Lord tabled the amendments as he did. The substitution of "properly" does not add anything material to the meaning and is unnecessary in view of Clause 19(6), which defines what is meant by a suitably qualified person for the purposes of the assessment.
	"Suitably qualified person" and its definition is consistent with the term used in Section 3 of the Bail Act 1976 in relation to the provisions for the assessment of drug users as a condition of bail under the provisions relating to drug users—the restriction on bail. Clause 19 provides for the Secretary of State to specify from time to time the qualifications or experience which a suitably qualified person must have. That will be set out in guidance, which we propose should be drawn up in consultation with the Department of Health and other key stakeholders.
	Perhaps the Government, working together, have been a little more successful than the noble Lord hitherto. I am very pleased that that is the case.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful for that answer, too. I probably should have said earlier that the amendments are tabled as they are because, in the short time available, I could not think of a better way to ask the questions. That is solely the purpose of them. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for that.
	I am delighted that there will be guidance and consultation. I urge the Government to make that consultation as wide as possible, as the real expertise in these difficult areas lies not in the statutory sector, but in the voluntary sector. That is terribly important. Not enough people in the voluntary sector are consulted. I have sat through many Bills such as this over the past 18 or so years, and so often one hears, after they have been enacted, leading people in the field saying, "We never knew anything about it". So I would urge the Government to consult as widely as possible in the field, through the tentacles of the NTA, but also wisely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 11, line 11, leave out "or has a propensity to misuse"

Lord Mancroft: The purpose of the amendment is to raise concerns about the phrase that appears in line 11, regarding a "propensity to misuse" drugs. There has been a difficulty for a long time in this country about the difference between misusing drugs and addiction to drugs. These are important.
	In the initial and follow-up assessments regarding the sending for treatment of people who commit crimes due to their drug addiction, "treatment" is another word for healthcare. Healthcare is for people who are unwell. In the area that we are discussing, that means addicts. Treatment for drug addicts is getting much better in this country and is working well in many fields. That is great. But you cannot treat misusers, because misuse is not an illness.
	The alcohol analogy is the simplest—many, or one or two, of your Lordships occasionally use alcohol. One or two of your Lordships may know people who are alcoholics. One or two of your Lordships may have occasionally misused alcohol once or twice in their lives. Those three matters are completely different. Whereas you can treat alcoholism, you cannot treat misuse. The fact is that users misuse and alcoholics misuse. But misusers are not necessarily alcoholics. That may sound complicated and I hope that it will look better in Hansard tomorrow morning. The reality is that the phrase "propensity to misuse" is most extraordinary and I have no idea how anyone will be able to understand its meaning or identify it.
	We know that genetics plays a part, as does environment, but those cannot be grounds for a referral to treatment, unless you wish to clog every treatment facility with unmotivated and disruptive time-servers who are sent there by the courts. As chairman of the Drug and Alcohol Foundation, which is one of the leading day care providers here in the City of Westminster in Dartmouth Street, exactly one street away from the Home Office, I can say that we are, as a tiny agency, clogged with people who are sent to us by the courts. Those people are not motivated, they should not really come to us and they are extremely disruptive both to the staff and the other clients. That is a real problem and my understanding is that it is a growing problem in many agencies throughout the country. It relates to our discussions during an earlier amendment regarding misdiagnosis, which has always been a particularly British problem.
	In tabling this amendment, I draw attention to the fact that a "propensity to misuse" is a deeply unfortunate phrase. It would be better if it were not in the Bill. I hope that guidance can ensure that people who misuse, but are not addicts and probably not treatable, are not referred to, and therefore clog up, treatment facilities where there are few enough places at the moment for too many clients. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, perhaps I may comfort the noble Lord in saying that the term "has a propensity to misuse" has already been used in other legislation. For example, it is used in Section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which amends Section 3 of the Bail Act 1976. It is a term with which those who have to deal with legislation are familiar, and know how to interpret it. Therefore, it is understood to a great extent.
	Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 17 would reduce the scope of assessments in Part 3 of the Bill to establishing only whether a person had a dependency upon any specified class A drug. It would preclude establishing whether those individuals who have not reached the stage of dependency may have a propensity to misuse specified class A drugs. The aim of Part 3 of the Bill is to help those who are using specified class A drugs—heroin, crack and cocaine—into treatment and to lead drug-free and crime-free lives.
	These drugs not only do terrible harm and damage to the individuals taking them, but to the communities they live in. The initial and follow-up assessments will give help and advice and steer those who need it into treatment. We do not want to help just those who are already dependent on those drugs, but those who may be just starting on a way of life involving drug misuse and the crime associated with it.
	The noble Lord, from his long experience of dealing with those who have, tragically, become addicted to drugs, knows that sometimes the journey to that dark place of total addiction can be rapid—but can sometimes take a long time. If we can interrupt that pathway quickly and at the first stage, it may be that the drug addiction will not ripen into a full-blown, debilitating addiction, which destroys the life of the abuser and, usually, everyone around them—particularly their family, who love them, often very dearly.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful for that explanation. As I said—and we have said twice tonight, I think—early diagnosis and early intervention are extremely important. This is an extremely difficult issue. I raise it because it is causing considerable difficulty in the field. There are too many inappropriate referrals, and they are fantastically disruptive when they do happen, as I have said, to staff and other clients.
	We have not yet got this right. Definition is very important and very difficult: the difference between abusers and misusers, and addiction and dependence. It is very confusing. Quite a number of pieces of legislation, whether they are inspired by the Department of Health or the Home Office, cross over, and occasionally definitions change, which causes immense problems. Most of them started wrong and got wronger, though over the years they have been getting slightly righter.
	If the noble Baroness reads tomorrow what she said today, I think she will find that the swapping of those words and the meanings that are attached to them by different people in different spheres, whether in the criminal justice system, the healthcare system or the social services system, is one of the problems. I would urge the Government to look at that very carefully. However, this propensity to "misuse" strikes me as an extremely dangerous route to go down. I think that we should view it with very great care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Follow-up assessment]:
	[Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Requirements under sections 9 and 10 supplemental]:
	[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Attendance at initial assessment]:

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Clause 12, page 13, line 35, leave out "must" and insert "may"

Lord Mancroft: This is another probing amendment, simply to ask a question. Page 13, line 35 of the Bill states:
	"The initial assessor must inform a police officer or a police support officer if the person",
	and so on.
	Presumably—I do not know—the initial assessor does not work for the criminal justice system or the police. There is no sanction if he does not inform. Indeed, what happens if he does not? Are we going to charge him as well? At what point does someone's healthcare become their own business? What happens if the assessor is concerned about patient confidentiality, which is very important? This is a very difficult healthcare issue and these are very difficult and vulnerable people—even if to some they are simply awkward offenders, as undoubtedly they are. However, they have their right to privacy and their need for healthcare as well, which is really why we are going through this process.
	So, at what point does someone's healthcare become their own business? As I understand it, at this stage the person has still not been found guilty of an offence. We are already obliged to appoint suitably qualified persons as assessors, as we have just discussed. However, if in the process those suitably qualified persons, who presumably have a duty of confidentiality as part of their qualification as assessors or as healthcare professionals, betray the confidences of their client, then they, like most of the qualified people I know, would lose their licences to practise. So perhaps the counsellor will wish to keep the treatment process confidential.
	My experience of treatment, which is quite considerable now, is that breached confidences in the treatment process invariably wreck that process. I am certain that that is not the Government's intention. It seems to me that the drafting of this clause is somewhat draconian, although it provides no sanction. Unless I have misunderstood it, which I may have done, it may have the exact opposite effect of that intended. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand why the noble Lord has opened this matter, so that we can respond, but I should like to reassure him that the way in which the amendment is phrased would not in fact assist an assessor. While the aim of the amendment may be to assist the drugs worker/client relationship, we believe that this would place the initial assessor in a difficult if not invidious position.
	It is not an offence for the assessor not to inform the police. All the assessor needs to do is to say whether the person has attended. The requirement to attend the initial assessment and remain for the duration is imposed by the police. The duty on the assessor is merely to report whether the person complied with the requirements—basically, to tell the authorities whether they turned up and whether or not they stayed for the assessment. It will be for the prosecuting authorities, and ultimately the courts, to decide whether a person has failed to do so without good cause and is therefore guilty of an offence.
	The noble Lord agrees that people must be assessed so that we know the nature of the condition that they have and what assistance they may or may not need. If the court is to do that, it is important that we have a way of confirming that the person did or did not take advantage of that opportunity. That is all that the provision seeks to do.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful for that response and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 14, line 2, leave out "51" and insert "14"

Lord Mancroft: Amendment No. 23, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29, is merely intended to raise the issue of the size of the penalties in the Bill. In my amendments, I replace those penalties with other ones. I do not know whether they are right; I am not a great expert on the level of offences. But it seems to me that a year in prison or, I believe, a £4,000 fine at level 4 is slightly high for what is effectively missing an appointment, although it may be a very important appointment.
	Under these charges, a great many people will be arrested for acquisitive crime, mainly to fund their drug habits—even the dealers. We are not talking about the "Mr Bigs" of this world; we are talking about small-time dealers, and basically most of them supply drugs to fund their own habits. The reason for that is that they do not have any money. How will they pay these fines? Unless they are lucky enough to be in one of the small, but admittedly increasing, number of prisons that have good drug programmes, the likelihood is that they will end up with a worse habit when they come out than when they went in.
	Standing back from this issue, such people are stealing only because the drugs are so expensive, although they are far cheaper than they used to be. The reason they are so expensive is that they are illegal, which is government policy. Those who steal are arrested and end up being fined. They cannot pay the fine and so they go to prison—for which we have to pay and which probably makes them worse—and they come out and do it again.
	The object of this legislation—one with which I think everyone in the Committee and beyond would agree—is to try to stop what we called the "revolving door syndrome". My concern is that if people are fined at too high a rate or if they are chucked into prison—obviously the object of the Bill is to stop them going to prison—then the revolving door syndrome is perpetuated.
	Therefore, in raising this point, I am questioning whether the level of fine and potential sentencing to prison is proportionate to the offences involved in this piece of legislation. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assure the noble Lord that on summary conviction up to 51 weeks' imprisonment and/or a fine will be the maximum penalty when the relevant sentencing provisions introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 come into force. Until that time, the maximum term of imprisonment will be three months. Where a defendant has tested positive on arrest or charge for a specified class A drug, indicating a possible addiction to drugs which may lead him into a life of crime, as the noble Lord has already indicated, it would be inappropriate to introduce a lower penalty and would, we believe, send the wrong message to the group.
	One must bear in mind the very broad variety of sentences introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The whole menu is available, and the fine and the term of 51 weeks' imprisonment is the outer limit. We think that the penalty under this provision is therefore the same as that for the failure to provide a sample when requested to do so on arrest or charge. We believe that it is at the appropriate level and is proportionate. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mancroft: Again, that was a very helpful explanation. I am delighted to hear that a whole menu of appropriate penalties is available. I hope that the appropriate authorities will be looking at the lower end of that menu, particularly when considering someone who, as the noble Baroness said, has been tested for a possible addiction. If you have a possible addiction and you have been tested for it, that means that you are ill. We have identified someone who is ill, so immediately we up the sentence.
	I have a feeling that, when people look back on this in a generation's time, the way in which we treat drug addicts in the first part of the 21st century will be considered in exactly the same manner as historians consider the way in which those two ghastly brothers treated poor old King George III. If one stands back and looks at the situation, one can see that it is immensely barbaric, apart from being an incredible waste of time and money. Nevertheless, we shall pray for the whole menu, and on that basis I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Arrangements for follow-up assessment]:
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Attendance at follow-up assessment]:
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Disclosure of information about assessments]:
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Inclusion of mushrooms containing psilocin etc. as Class A drugs]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Cobbold: The Bill has many problem areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, so ably pointed out. Clause 21 has the air of having been slipped in at the last minute, and its removal would have no influence on the rest of the Bill. The clause seeks to classify so-called magic mushrooms as class A drugs alongside heroin, crack and cocaine.
	Magic mushrooms grow wild all over the fields of England and have been enjoyed recreationally for many years. It is true that they contain a quantity of the substance psilocin, which in its pure and concentrated form is already classified as a class A drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. But experience tells us that the mushrooms themselves have a low danger to health relative to most other commonly used drugs and according to the Government's Talktofrank website, they are,
	"not addictive in any way".
	As I said at Second Reading on Tuesday, the point at issue is to what extent any government have the right in a free society to interfere in the personal choices of individual citizens and, with the excuse of protecting their health, to impose criminal sanctions on anyone who disobeys the rules. Government have every right and indeed a duty to educate and to warn the public, particularly the young, of the risks to personal health of all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Indeed, the campaign against smoking in recent years is a good example of what can be achieved by publicising potential harm to health.
	Publicity and health warnings are one thing, but criminalising the enjoyment of a relatively harmless mushroom that grows wild in our fields is surely a step too far. Are farmers to become criminals because class A drugs grow on their land? That is absurd. The clause will drive the existing, modest trade underground and into the hands of criminals, and it will increase the burden on the already overstretched criminal justice system. I hope that the Government will agree to drop Clause 21 from the Bill.

Lord Selsdon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for reasons that he may find hard to determine. I stand here to make a plea on behalf of the mushroom hunter. I have already disclosed my interest as a peasant farmer in France and a wine grower.
	I want to refer to the rather improper remarks made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft on the subject of wine. I carry large quantities of wine in cars and trucks, and I sell it. Of course, when wine is in the grape, with maybe 14 degrees alcohol, it is not treated as alcohol or wine and regarded as dangerous. Wine and mushrooms go well together. Noble Lords will know that you may not shoot a wild boar during the hunting season when the grapes have not been picked. There is a relationship in the land that I have between the wild boar and the mushroom hunter. The hunters who hunt the wild boar hunt with guns. The hunters who hunt the mushroom remember the old adage that there are bold mushroom hunters, old mushroom hunters but no old, bold mushroom hunters. The mushroom is a very dangerous creature. There are over 2,000 of them. Will the Minister kindly let me know how many of them contain psilocin?
	The Destroying Angel is a mushroom that bothers me. It is far more dangerous than the magic mushroom. I understand that in the United Kingdom there are about five different types of magic mushroom. They are only treated as class A drugs once they have been processed. There are problems with the difference between Jack o' lantern and Slippery Jack: I have forgotten which of those is deadly poisonous and which is not. We all may know of cepe, morel and chanterelle mushrooms and that their value is considerable. There has been a tremendous growth in mushroom hunting throughout Europe, including the United Kingdom, with groups from Switzerland, Austria and France coming over into certain parts of the world. It is a secretive business because the value of cepe mushrooms or others is very high.
	I have a fear that if the Bill goes through, as is, genuine mushroom hunters may well pick up a mushroom or a fungus that is full of psilocin and thus commit a criminal offence. That matter is solved in many countries. Mushrooms are so deadly and dangerous that unless you are a competent person you cannot tell the difference. So normally you would pick them using surgical gloves. Poisonous mushrooms must never touch non-poisonous mushrooms, otherwise they will pollute them. You would take the mushrooms to the local pharmacist who will say "Yes, no, yes, no" and tell you how to cook them. In the United Kingdom, we do not have that knowledge. Is the Minister concerned in any way that the provision may offend against the European Convention on Human Rights? Is she concerned about protecting mushroom pickers? Does she or her department know anything at all about mushrooms?

Lord Mancroft: I will add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, if it survives much longer, which it sounds as though it is not going to. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has said. He has listed most of the points, but I shall make three very short points.
	First, my understanding is that—the noble Baroness may be able to help us on this—a ban on magic mushrooms in this country may not be legal under European law. I gather that there is an appeal to the European Court on the subject because the things are sold completely legally throughout Europe. It would presumably be some sort of interference with trade, bearing it in mind that they are legally sold in hundreds of shops around the country at the moment.
	Secondly, has the plan to make magic mushrooms into a class A drug been referred to the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs? Thirdly, the legislation is simply disproportionate. Magic mushrooms really do not cause any harm at all, they cannot be addictive and have never caused a public order issue. The idea that they should be put into the same category as heroin and cocaine is so ludicrous that it makes the provision a laughing stock. The legislation will have no effect on the use or misuse of magic mushrooms. Most people will not take any notice of it, understand it or, probably, even know of it. The only effect that it might have is a minor, inadvertent and rather undesirable effect on the poor people who inadvertently grow them or have them on their land and those who sell them not realising that they are illegal.
	The provision is disproportionate and has no place in the Bill. It would be much better to remove the clause. So I support the noble Lord's argument.

Lord Rea: My noble friend said at Second Reading that magic mushrooms could have damaging, hallucinatory effects equivalent to those of LSD. That is certainly not my clinical experience. LSD can cause alarming hallucinations that may have lasting effects. But I have never met anyone who has come to any harm from the use of magic mushrooms. The house in which I used to live when my boys were growing up backed on to Hampstead Heath. They frequently went on magic mushroom foraging expeditions with their friends. Neither they nor their friends had anything other than pleasurable experiences as a result.
	I shall cite an e-mail that I received from a probation officer recently. Other noble Lords may have had the same message. It states:
	"Being a probation officer, I have helped people who have been addicted to alcohol, ecstasy, cannabis, heroin and crack. But I never met a person who has been addicted to magic mushrooms. They are totally non-addictive and grow naturally. Why ban them?".
	Indeed, following up what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, how can you ban something that grows naturally on UK soil?
	My noble friend also said in her speech that clarifying the status of fresh magic mushrooms as a controlled drug will, "we hope"—she said—decrease the trade. I suggest that that is unlikely to occur. In fact, the trade will go underground into criminal hands; the strength will probably be increased and unknown. As both the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Cobbold, said, it will occupy police time unnecessarily, as is the case with other controlled drugs. As other noble Lords have said, it would do no harm just to drop the clause, if the Government must have the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear the words, "Drop it", coming from some parts of the Chamber. I am unable to drop the clause for the following reasons. Perhaps I may clarify something that I said on Second Reading. The clause will clarify and extend the law on magic mushrooms and remove any doubt that the importation, exportation, production, possession or possession with intent to supply and the supply of fresh mushrooms, as well as prepared ones, is an offence.
	On Second Reading on 4 April, I responded to contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Cobbold, about clarification of the law on magic mushrooms. Having reviewed Hansard, I should like to clarify my comments. At the time, I wanted to make clear that Clause 21 will not change the classification of magic mushrooms. By virtue of the nods that I received when speaking, I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, understood that. Magic mushrooms that are prepared or are in the form of a product are already class A drugs, as are the active ingredients, psilocin and psilocybin. Clause 21 will simply ensure that fresh magic mushrooms, which may not necessarily be a product or be prepared, are also class A drugs. That will ensure legal clarity and consistency.
	It may not be apparent to all noble Lords that in the past two years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of outlets selling imported fresh magic mushrooms and there is growing concern about the impact that they have on public health. The Government estimate that more than 400 establishments in the United Kingdom are selling those drugs and are mostly supplied with imported magic mushrooms—predominantly from Holland. Customs and Excise estimates the import for 2004 to be between 8,000 and 16,000 kilogrammes.
	I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is undesirable that those drugs be on open sale in the high street. Contributions in this House and another place indicate that there seems to be something of a misconception about the harms and potency of magic mushrooms. Let us be in no doubt that they are highly hallucinogenic and equivalent in effect to LSD. I hear what my noble friend Lord Rea says, but, from the information available to the Government, magic mushrooms appear to be particularly harmful to those with a mental illness or an underlying mental health problem and can precipitate psychosis. They can be very harmful to those with a heart condition and users are also vulnerable to self-harm while under the influence of mushrooms. As with LSD, those misusing mushrooms may experience negative flashbacks. We have therefore decided to take steps to remove any doubt over the legality of their importation and commercial sale.
	At present, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the chemicals inside magic mushrooms—psilocin and psilocybin—constitute class A drugs. Magic mushrooms themselves constitute a class A drug if they have been prepared or are in the form of a product. As such, importation, exportation, production, possession, possession with intent to supply, or supply of those mushrooms is an offence. It is for the courts to determine, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes a preparation or a product. A number of those involved in the commercial sale of magic mushrooms argue that picked fresh magic mushrooms for, or on, sale do not constitute a preparation or a product. We disagree.
	In December 2004, one judge recommended that Parliament consider new legislation to clarify the legal position. The law change proposed in the Drugs Bill would do that, putting an end to uncertainty by making it clear that all magic mushrooms are class A drugs whatever form they are in.
	The taking of magic mushrooms is much more prevalent than some may be aware. The British Crime Survey for 2002-03 showed 180,000 16 to 59 year-olds using magic mushrooms in that year. All indications are that the numbers for 2003 and 2004 will show a dramatic increase in that number, underlining why it is important for Her Majesty's Government to take this measure.
	These measures are aimed at addressing the relatively new phenomenon of imported hallucinogenic mushrooms. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said at Second Reading, varieties known as liberty cap mushrooms are indigenous to the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have already considered how to consider those mushrooms in the context of this amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
	On 3 February, during Committee stage of the Drugs Bill in another place, the Drugs Minister, my honourable friend Caroline Flint, undertook for Her Majesty's Government to draw up regulations dealing with certain exemptions from the offence of personal possession and agreed not to bring the relevant provision into force until the regulations were also in force.
	The United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 places psilocin in Schedule 1, the highest level of control. So there is international consensus that those substances present certain serious harm. I understand the concern that noble Lords may have about picking magic mushrooms. I emphasise that the purpose of this offence is to cease the sale and importation of psilocybe cubensis mushrooms. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, asked how much this Government know about mushrooms. A great deal, it would appear. How much does this Minister know? My Lords, she is learning all the time.

Lord Rea: Before my noble friend sits down, does she feel that banning magic mushrooms and thus driving them into criminal hands underground makes control easier than if they are a perfectly legal substance? Would it not be easier to monitor what is going on if they were on sale in the open market? It would also be possible for environmental health officers and others to check on the strength of magic mushroom preparations, whereas, after the passing of this Bill, they will go out of sight.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I repeat what I have said already. Of course, magic mushrooms in their prepared form are already classified as class A drugs. That classification has been endorsed on an international level in the way that I have just indicated. The difficulty has been in the way matters have been dealt with when coming before the court and there is an assertion that, although the constituents are present in fresh mushrooms, they are not a preparation and they are not therefore covered.
	The courts have indicated that that lack of clarity was causing difficulties. We have sought to deal with that in the way that I have just described. It is an important issue because these drugs—and drugs they are—are being imported and sold for considerable profit, and are causing real harm. It is that real harm with which we really have to deal.

Lord Cobbold: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. On listening to the technical explanation that she has given, it seems that she is saying that prepared elements are already categorised as class A. But this clause will change ordinary, unprocessed, fresh mushrooms growing in the fields of England from being just nothing to being a class A drug, which I think is unacceptable.
	Because this clause does not affect any other part of the Bill, I feel that we are justified in testing the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 11.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 21 agreed to accordingly.
	Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
	Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.
	Bill read a third time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the Bill and given it such a swift passage, including my noble friend on the Woolsack. I also take this opportunity to thank members of the Bill team, who have worked incredibly hard, and all those who have ensured that we have had our Marshalled Lists in time.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Gambling Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
	Schedule 1 [Betting: Prize Competitions: Definition of Payment to Enter]:

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 160, line 13, leave out "reflects" and insert "has been calculated so as to reflect"

Lord Clement-Jones: In moving the amendment, I should like to use the opportunity to explain, especially for the benefit of external organisations that have argued long and hard on the Bill, the approach that our Front Bench will be taking during this very compressed Committee stage of the Bill. On a wash-up of this nature, with only one day of the Committee stage behind us, there is a huge number of potential amendments, many of a technical but important nature, in the Marshalled List.
	Agreement has been reached, however, between the Government and opposition parties in both Houses to allow the Bill to pass, provided certain key amendments are made. It would not be fair in these circumstances, we believe, to single out a few other amendments or spend the next several hours debating points and seeking clarification on issues which are not part of that broad agreement. It would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the wash-up agreement to expedite the passage of the Bill before dissolution.
	We recognise that we are this evening essentially going through a set of formalities where it is simply impossible, in the time available, to raise substantive issues, many of which have merit. Our Front Bench will therefore not be moving further amendments. However, I want to put it on record, and seek the Minister's acknowledgment of the fact, that the text of the Bill has not received the fine tuning that passage through the Lords normally ensures. In those circumstances, it would be helpful for the Minister to give the assurance that the Gambling Commission will take account of this in its operation of the Bill and that the commission and the Government will ensure that an early and thorough review of the operation of the Bill will take place. That assurance would be helpful in circumstances in which there are still many doubts and fears about the precise operation of many parts of the Bill and the definitions contained in it. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said. We and the Liberal Democrats have achieved a deal with the Government. Therefore, we see this very much as a formal process. That said, I want to put it on record that I feel we have achieved a great deal, given the lack of time and proper scrutiny of this controversial and, in many ways, difficult—albeit important—Bill. Time has been so short, and a lot of us feel this keenly.
	To that end, I am grateful to the Minister for publishing the Ministerial Statement in Hansard, for the various meetings that we have had and for his listening approach to the Bill. Again, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in that there are many people beyond your Lordships' House who would like to have heard more from our Benches and from others about certain issues. We cannot go into detail on all those tonight. We accept that, but we want to be sure that the Gambling Commission and the Government will take on board the necessity to consider in detail many of those areas of an important Bill on which one day in Committee has not really provided enough scrutiny.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31, 32, 293, 297 and Clause 258 stand part. Before I do so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their opening remarks. I give them both an assurance that the Gambling Commission, when it is established later this year, and the Gaming Board are very conscious of the issues they have raised. Much of the discussion has not been, as it commonly is, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but elsewhere.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for acknowledging that on the most important issues raised by amendments other than government amendments, I have been able to respond—giving, I hope, a degree of satisfaction—to the points made in those amendments. By including them in a Ministerial Statement which was published on Monday morning, I have ensured that those responses and arguments appear in Hansard and provide some protection which is not possible to provide in private letters.
	That is not the case for the government amendments. The Committee will forgive me, but I have to say some words about those because although I have explained them in letters to Members of the Committee, I have not actually said so in Hansard.
	The government amendments in this group are designed to improve protections for charity lotteries and are the result of extensive discussions between DCMS officials and a number of interested parties. One of the problems that the Bill has sought to tackle is the vague and subjective boundary between lotteries and competitions. We think that it is right that lotteries should be permitted only for good causes and not for commercial ends. It is not fair that some companies are running de facto lotteries and not having to comply with the regulatory rules that charitable lotteries must follow.
	We have listened to those who suggested that Clause 14, as originally drafted, was hard to understand and would present practical difficulties for prosecution and defence alike, and we agree that it can be improved. Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31 and 32 therefore make the clause more user-friendly, without diluting the rigour of the definition or the principles underpinning it.
	The amendments allow those designing competitions to judge, in advance, whether their competitions are in fact illegal lotteries. In addition, they assist those who need to police the boundary between lotteries and prize competitions to determine where that boundary is placed. That benefits promoters of prize competitions, who will be able to satisfy themselves that their competitions are not in breach of gambling law, and lotteries, which can rest assured that the boundary between lotteries and competitions can be properly and fairly policed.
	Our intention under Clause 14(5) has been clear all along: any competition that calls for a derisory element of skill will be treated as a lottery. The companies running commercial competitions will need to ensure that they stay well on the right side of the law because the Government will expect the Gambling Commission, with its new enforcement remit and powers, to be energetic in clamping down on abuses in the area of lottery scams that divert money from charitable causes.
	We have listened carefully to the many society lotteries that have asked that the monetary limits on lotteries set out in Clause 97 should be reviewed on a triennial basis. We think that that it is preferable to retain the flexibility to review the limits when a review is needed, rather than prescribe reviews at regular intervals. However, given the importance that the sector attaches to such reviews, the Government will as a matter of custom and practice expect the Gambling Commission to offer them advice every three years.
	The Government are also aware of the society lotteries sector's strong request for an increase in the limits now, and the Government will expect the Gambling Commission to undertake the first such review before the end of the current calendar year. If the case for an increase is accepted, implementation will not be delayed. Amendment No. 293 addresses a technical concern over who may promote a small society lottery.
	We have received a number of representations from society lotteries stating that they use people such as barmen and newsagents to sell their lottery tickets. Paragraph 32 of Schedule 11 would stop that practice. We do not think that it is necessary to limit the promotion of society lotteries in that way, and we are happy to see the current practice continue.
	Under the current draft of the Bill, if a person does anything in Great Britain in relation to a lottery, wherever it is held, they will commit an offence unless the lottery is licensed or exempt. That would prevent business in Great Britain from taking advantage, for example, of contracts to print material for foreign lotteries. We do not wish to constrain businesses in Great Britain in that way. Amendment No. 297 will, therefore, permit certain activities to be done in Great Britain in relation to foreign lotteries, while maintaining the general prohibition on tickets for foreign lotteries being sold in or to persons in Great Britain. The amendment also creates a defence against the offences of promoting or facilitating a lottery where a person reasonably believed that the lottery was a foreign one.
	We have looked carefully again at the need for Clause 258, which makes specific provision for controlling rapid play lotteries, in the light of concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. On further reflection, we have concluded that there is no need to make separate and specific provision for excessive repetitive lottery play. There are enough powers in Clauses 73, 75 and 76, so we propose to remove Clause 258.
	I would like to respond in advance to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, starting with Amendment No. 37. I understand her determination to act against bogus lotteries because such scams prey on the vulnerable. They lead them to believe that they have won a prize when either there is no prize or people are forced to part with considerable sums to collect it. They reduce public confidence in legitimate charitable lotteries. I pay particular tribute to the citizens advice bureaux for their work tackling that problem.
	I assure the Committee that the Gambling Commission will have the powers that it needs to investigate and prosecute commercial lotteries or lotteries that break the rules with the utmost vigour. The problem is that many of the scams that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, describes are just that—they are scams, not lotteries. If there is no prize, it is simply not a lottery. We agree that we should make life difficult for those people, but the Gambling Bill is not the place to do it, as it can regulate only gambling activities. There is other legislation in the Enterprise Act 2002 and there is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Ofcom, ICSTIS and the DTI work closely together to tighten the regulatory regime, improving the likelihood that the victims of scams will get redress. We expect further announcements to be made on that matter shortly.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised an important point. I want the Gambling Commission to play its role alongside those other authorities, and I want to say two things to her and to the Committee. First, we expect the Gambling Commission to draw to the attention of the appropriate authority any scams of that sort that it comes across. Secondly, my officials will arrange a meeting with the Gambling Commission, the DTI, ICSTIS, Ofcom and the OFT to discuss arrangements for information sharing and joint working, so that nobody slips through the gap.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. As he knows, it was my intention to make a detailed attempt through the amendments in my name to persuade the Government that the Bill could be changed in such a way as to give the Gambling Commission power to deal with what is clearly a growing epidemic of fraudulent so-called scam lotteries.
	I know, too, that other noble Lords hear my concern at the growing number of individuals who find themselves the target of bogus lotteries. Indeed, as the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on 21 March, showed all too clearly, noble Lords themselves have been bombarded by many such scams. But as has been said, organisations such as the CAB are at the receiving end of many of the vulnerable people who are increasingly being targeted in that way, and there are a considerable number of victims of those unscrupulous fraudsters.
	I accept what the Minister and the Government have said and their firm belief, about which I originally had my doubts, that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to deal with such scams. I was particularly impressed by what the Minister said in expressing his own concern and by the firm undertaking that he made that more efforts would be made to bring all the interested parties together to take the necessary action required to end that situation.
	I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that once your Lordships are once again back at work in this Chamber, I shall keep an interest in the issue and see how far the situation can be remedied.

Lord Clement-Jones: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Lottery]:
	[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
	Page 7, line 3, leave out "the requirement neither"
	Page 7, line 4, leave out "prevents" and insert "the requirement cannot reasonably be expected to prevent"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
	Page 7, leave out line 6 and insert "and"
	Page 7, line 7, leave out "prevents" and insert "the requirement cannot reasonably be expected to prevent"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
	Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Lotteries: Definition of Payment to Enter]:
	[Amendments Nos. 34 to 41 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Establishment of the Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [The Gambling Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Duty to promote the licensing objectives]:
	[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Policy for licensing and regulation]:
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 47A:
	Page 10, line 27, at end insert "(including, in Scotland, licensing boards),"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This group contains a very large number of minor drafting and technical amendments to the Bill. I have speeches on all or any of them if anyone wants to hear them. However, if no one wants to hear them, I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: I have a large number of amendments in this group, to which I shall not speak individually or in any great detail. The Committee will perhaps be pleased to hear that. However, I should like to make a few brief comments on my Amendments Nos. 182 and 183.
	Amendment No. 182 concerns the relationship between the licensing system for casinos and the planning system. Amendment No. 183 seeks to determine whether a regional casino—however many or few we may get—will contribute towards regeneration in the area in which it will be situated.
	It seems to me that these two issues have not been satisfactorily "bottomed" yet. As regards the relationship between the licensing system and the planning system, we clearly do not have time to discuss that in detail within this wash-up procedure. Nevertheless, however few casinos may be built, we should consider how the systems will work out in practice. If the new regional and large casinos have the effect on an area which it is claimed that they will have—whether that is beneficial or otherwise—clearly, their impact will be important vis-à-vis the spatial planning system. It seems to me that the Government simply have not thought out the relationship between, and the sequence of events involved, in the two sets of decision-making, how they interact and which will be regarded as the primary system of decision-making. In my view that ought to be the spatial planning system, but I think that the Bill suggests otherwise.
	Great claims are being made in this area as regards regeneration. We shall no doubt find out through experimentation whether that is the case. However, in my view before a decision is made to go ahead with one of these casinos, the local authority concerned and, indeed, the adjacent authorities, need to be absolutely satisfied that the regeneration benefits which are claimed will occur. An independent assessment of that needs to be carried out in each case just as a project of that size which had great environmental implications would have to undergo an environmental impact assessment.
	I wish to put on record that I believe those matters have still not been properly sorted out. We have still not received satisfactory explanations, answers and guarantees regarding those issues. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, with regard to the issue that she raised, we shall have to return to these issues in the future.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising those serious issues and legitimate concerns, but the trouble is that they are not really legitimate concerns for this gambling regulation Bill. They are matters for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and you cannot very well include planning matters in a gambling regulation Bill. If the noble Lord had been present at the many meetings that we have had with ODPM officials and with Ministers, he would appreciate the complexity behind the request that he is making.

Lord Greaves: If the Minister would like to invite me to such meetings in future, I should be delighted to attend.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall see who is around after 5 May, shall we?
	The issue was recognised by the Secretary of State on Second Reading in the House of Commons. She confirmed that any change of use of a building into a casino will be subject to planning control, which is one of the most important aspects of planning. That cannot appear in the Bill, but it is enormously important in the regulation of casinos. We have been considering how to do that. We have been considering changes to the regime for planning together with ODPM, and those discussions have included regional spatial strategies, on which ODPM has placed a great deal of emphasis, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.
	Amendment No. 183 is not particularly helpful, because the Bill already has plenty of provision for licensing authorities to make clear their regeneration objectives for the licensing of casinos, and they have all the powers that they require to secure those benefits. Although I do not disagree with the sentiments, I do not see what value it adds to the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will keep a close watching eye on those developments as they proceed after the Bill becomes law.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
	Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Codes of practice]:
	[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 53A:
	Page 11, line 41, at end insert "(including, in Scotland, licensing boards),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Guidance to local authorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 55 to 66 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 66A:
	Page 12, line 34, after "London," insert—
	"(iva) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Duty to advise Secretary of State]:
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	Clause 26 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 68:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
	"COMPLIANCE
	The Commission may undertake activities for the purpose of assessing—
	(a) compliance with provision made by or by virtue of this Act;
	(b) whether an offence is being committed under or by virtue of this Act."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 111, 328, 340 and 344. This group of amendments focuses on a number of improvements to the Bill designed better to protect children and vulnerable adults. Amendments Nos. 68, 111 and 328 add to the powers of the Gambling Commission. They allow the commission to assess whether offences are being committed under the Bill. In particular, they allow the commission to use young people in test purchasing activities to assess the effectiveness of age controls. Because of those powers, licensees will have to be vigilant at all times in ensuring that children are kept out of their premises.
	Amendment No. 108 is about gaming machines that children can use, which we call category D machines in this Bill. It follows up the commitment that I made on Second Reading to give Ministers power to limit the effect of any new age requirements for category D machines to particular types of gaming machines. If there is evidence of a particular risk from children playing one form of machine gaming, Parliament will be able to take action focused on that risk and not damage harmless amusements. That means that we can exclude machines such as penny pushers and crane machines from any future age restriction, if appropriate. It also means that, before proposing to Parliament that an age limit be placed on the use of particular types of machine, the Secretary of State must consult the Gambling Commission, relevant parts of the gambling industry and people involved with problem gambling.
	The issue of children playing gaming machines has been a testing one on which I know that many people hold strong views. We have considered the matter thoroughly now, and I hope that it will be accepted that we have a sensible balance.
	Amendments Nos. 109, 340 and 344 are about offences. They ensure that, on each day that a person continues to be illegally employed, or an advertisement continues to be illegally displayed or made accessible, a new offence is committed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Investigation and prosecution of offences]:
	[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Other exchange of information]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 69A to 71:
	Page 13, line 34, after "in" insert "Part 1 or 2 of"
	Page 13, line 36, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Commission may provide information received by it in the exercise of its functions to the Comptroller and Auditor General for use in the exercise of his functions under Part 2 of the National Audit Act 1983 (c. 44).
	(2B) The Commission may provide information received by it in the exercise of its functions to a person if the provision is for the purpose of—
	(a) a criminal investigation (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), or
	(b) criminal proceedings (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere).
	(2C) Note 1A to Schedule 6 shall not apply to the provision of information under subsection (2A)."
	Page 13, line 38, at end insert—
	"(4) The Commission may charge a fee for the provision of information under subsection (1)(a).
	(5) This section is subject to section (Data protection)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 72 had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 69A.]
	Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 6 [Exchange of Information: Persons and Bodies]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 78:
	Page 168, line 12, leave out "authority" and insert "force"
	Page 168 , line 22, at end insert—
	"The Charity Commission
	The Financial Services Authority"
	Page 168, leave out lines 23 and 24.
	Page 168, line 24, at end insert—
	"The Director General and staff of the National Crime Squad
	The Director General and staff of the National Criminal Intelligence Service"
	Page 168, line 27, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"PART 2A

Sport Governing Bodies

The England and Wales Cricket Board Limited
	The Football Association Limited
	The Football Association of Wales Limited
	The Horseracing Regulatory Authority
	The Lawn Tennis Association
	The Irish Football Association Limited
	The Jockey Club
	The National Greyhound Racing Club Limited
	The Professional Golfers' Association Limited
	The Rugby Football League
	The Rugby Football Union
	The Scottish Rugby Union
	The Scottish Football Association Limited
	UK Athletics Limited
	The Welsh Rugby Union Limited"
	Page 169, line 10, at end insert—
	"1A Where by virtue of an enactment the use that may be made of information supplied by a person or body listed in this Schedule is restricted, or where the information may be further disclosed only with the consent of the person or body which provided the information, the prohibition or restriction on further disclosure shall apply to—
	(a) the supply of information by virtue of this Act, and
	(b) the supply of information to the Gambling Commission (whether or not by virtue of this Act)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 30 to 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Territorial application]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 79:
	Page 15, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	"(a) to store information relating to a person's participation in the gambling,"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendments deal with a number of important but detailed issues raised with the Government by those who hope to offer licensed remote gambling under the Bill. They have been discussed and agreed with remote gambling operator associations, and we are grateful for their help.
	Amendment No. 79 provides that equipment used by remote gambling operators to store their customers' personal information and to keep records of customers' gambling transaction history will count as remote gambling equipment for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment No. 82 amends the definition of remote gambling equipment by replacing equipment to process payments with equipment to record the results of gambling—whether someone has won or lost. Both that and the previous amendment ensure that equipment integral to the provision of remote gambling is covered by the Bill.
	Amendment No. 89 excludes remote communications providers from the offence of installing or supplying gambling software. It clarifies that a person does not commit an offence if they provide only communications equipment or services—for example, a mobile telephone network—even if they are then used to download gambling software. Amendment No. 142 corrects a drafting error. Amendments Nos. 143 and 158 address concerns about the way in which the Bill works in relation to player-to-player operations such as online poker equipment shared between British and overseas companies.
	The starting point for regulation is that all remote gambling equipment must be sited in Britain. The amendments allow the commission to take a case-by-case approach in deciding whether exceptions can be made to that general rule. The commission can therefore determine whether gambling equipment can be located outside Great Britain without endangering the protection of British consumers. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 15, line 29, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
	"(d) to store information relating to a result."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 15, line 30, leave out "a computer" and insert "equipment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Use of premises]:
	[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Power to amend section 36]:
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.
	Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
	Clause 40 [Gambling software]:
	[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
	"(2A) A person does not supply or install gambling software for the purposes of subsection (1) by reason only of the facts that—
	(a) he makes facilities for remote communication or non-remote communication available to another person, and
	(b) the facilities are used by the other person to supply or install gambling software."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Cheating]:
	[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
	Clause 42 [Chain-gift schemes]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 19, line 28, after "Scotland" insert "or Northern Ireland"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Provision of unlawful facilities abroad]:
	[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
	Clause 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Invitation to gamble]:
	[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Invitation to enter premises]:
	[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 102A:
	Page 21, line 24, leave out "invited or"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In moving Amendment No. 102A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 135 to 138, 187, 220, 234A, 244, 247 to 249, 378A and 381.
	The Government decided earlier in the passage of the Bill that the number of regional casinos should be subject to a limit of eight in the first place. Some have argued that eight is too many and that there should be a smaller test of the regional casino concept before more licences are authorised.
	In another place the Opposition proposed an amendment which would have applied a limit of four to regional casinos. They have now maintained that that is too high and that there should be no more than a single regional casino in the first place. They have made it clear that their support for the passage of the Bill is contingent on such a limitation.
	We have from the outset emphasized the precautionary principle. In other words, where there is room for reasonable doubt about the social impact of allowing more opportunities for gambling, we should err on the side of caution and maintain stricter regulation until there is empirical evidence which provides the necessary reassurance.
	In the case of regional casinos an initial limit of one rather than eight is consistent with the precautionary principle. We have therefore agreed with the Opposition that the Bill should be amended to provide for one regional casino licence, rather than eight. This group of amendments includes Amendment No. 234A, which has that effect. It also includes Amendment No. 235 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which has the same effect, although our quantity is better than his.
	However, I wish to make it clear, as the Government have made it clear to the Opposition, that we do not and cannot rule out at this stage the possibility that at some later stage there might be a case for asking Parliament to agree to some increase above a single licence. In that event, it would be for Parliament to decide. The Bill, as already drafted, provides for any change to the number of regional licences to require the affirmative resolution of both Houses.
	However, the effect of the present amendment is plain: the Bill will provide for one and only one regional casino licence in the first place. We will proceed with planning for implementation on that basis. We will keep the position under review with an open mind, and we will look to Parliament to do the same if the need arises.
	When the House met in Committee on 10 March there was strong feeling that more needed to be done in the Bill to ensure that casinos maintained effective controls on entry to the gambling areas of their casinos. On 10 March, I highlighted the very rigorous measures that are in place and that the Government intend to impose through the Bill, which together will ensure that only adults can enter the gambling area of casinos; that when they gamble they are provided with the toughest protection against problem gambling anywhere in the world; and that effective measures will continue to be in place to protect against any threat of money laundering in casinos. In each of these areas—the exclusion of children from gambling areas, effective action to protect against problem gambling, and action against money laundering—the Government are confident that the combination of action under the Bill and the existing money-laundering regulations will achieve all the objectives which I think are shared across the House.
	The Government took careful note of the mood of the Committee on 10 March and I said that I was only too happy to discuss the matter in detail with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We have had very constructive discussions. Those have resulted in government Amendments Nos. 102A and 243A.
	I want to reiterate what I said about money laundering and the requirements on casino customers to provide identification now and in the future. The second money-laundering directive is enforced now through Treasury regulations. Those regulations require identification of casino customers on entry, and the Gaming Board and the Treasury issue guidance on acceptable forms of ID. That system is working well and will continue to have effect whether or not this Bill comes into effect.
	Alongside the enforcement of the second directive, we are now considering with other member states a third directive. Like the second directive, the draft third directive offers casinos the option of identifying customers on entry or when they spend a given amount of money which is proposed at 1,000 euros. No final decision on the third directive has yet been taken. I want to be clear, however, that the Government are entirely committed to firm action to combat money laundering and to the requirements for identification that comes with that. We will impose effective identification requirements on casinos now and in the future.
	I want to reiterate also what I said about action to combat risks of problem gambling. The Bill bristles with new powers to protect vulnerable consumers. It gives the Gambling Commission unprecedented powers to interfere with the detailed operation of gambling premises to negate risks of problem gambling. It requires the commission to issue a code of practice on social responsibility. It makes it a condition of each operating licence that the licensee complies with the code. I can say without fear of contradiction that no consumers in any modern gambling industry will be as comprehensively protected as those in British casinos.
	The amendments give expression to the pledges I gave. Amendment No. 234A imposes new requirements on casino operators to ensure that those under 18 cannot gain entry to casinos or the gambling areas of regional casinos. The amendment is mainly concerned with ensuring two things: that there are staff supervising all entry points, and that where there is any reasonable doubt whether a person is aged 18 or over, that person is required to produce evidence of age. Under the amendment the Gambling Commission will be required to issue a code of practice spelling out the detailed arrangements which operators are to make to achieve those two objectives. The Gambling Commission code will deal specifically with the nature of ID evidence that operators will need to obtain. The code of practice on age verification will be mandatory, not advisory.
	It will be a condition of the premises licence that the licensee complies with the code. If they do not, they will breach the terms of their licence even if it turns out that the person concerned was in fact over 18. So the burden of responsibility falls squarely on the casino, as it should.
	As I said in Committee, there is already in the Bill a specific criminal offence in Clause 46(1) that places a strong burden of responsibility on casinos to keep children out. But I want to underline that we have listened. In these amendments we have proposed even tougher arrangements that will protect children and can reassure parents. Government Amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138 and 244 follow on from the announcement I made on Second Reading about the use of credit cards in casinos. They prevent customers using their credit cards in payment for gambling in a casino. The Bill as already drafted prohibits the use of credit cards in gaming machines, but these amendments extend this to all gambling in a casino. They do allow cash machines to remain in casinos so long as there is no commercial relationship between the casino and the machine provider. The casino must also ensure that conditions relating to the location of such machines are observed properly.
	We also gave an undertaking to provide the Secretary of State with a reserve power to order licensing authorities to consider whether to pass a casino resolution. Amendments Nos. 187 and 220 do that. Amendments Nos. 247, 248, 249 and 381 ensure that, where bingo and casino operators use their own staff for door supervision purposes, they continue to be exempt from being licensed under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. We believe that the controls in the Bill are enough to regulate those matters.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 378A. Some of the provisions in this amendment are merely consequential on the provisions of Part 12 of the Bill relating to alcohol licensed premises. They ensure that the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968 are consistent with the provisions of Part 12, but the amendment also makes new proposals in relation to casinos licensed under that Act. The amendments indicate the Government's positive and constructive response to the concerns raised by the British casino industry, which were reflected in a number of comments in Committee and at Second Reading.
	The Government are pledged to take a precautionary approach to the reform of the law on casinos. The public and the House of Commons demanded changes to the Bill that ensured a controlled evolution of the casino market, and we will honour our promise to take this process of change slowly.
	The Bill allows for new styles of casino, with many more gaming machines than existing casinos. Of course, all companies operating casinos now will be eligible to apply for the new licences, and I am sure that they will be well placed to win them. The Bill sets limits on the number of new licences in the first phase of the new regime. There will be no more new-style licences until we have had an opportunity to assess the impact of the new casinos and the effectiveness of the Gambling Commission's new protections against problem gambling. We think that this precautionary principle is necessary and we shall not compromise on it.
	In that context, the Government do not consider it prudent to allow all existing casinos to convert into new-style casinos immediately. We think it more appropriate to delay such conversion until the safety of the new forms of casino has been confirmed in practice. Equally, we believe that it is reasonable to permit existing casinos some of the new commercial freedoms offered to new casinos. Accordingly, existing casinos will be able to advertise and will not be required to operate as members' clubs if they do not want to do so.
	The Government have reflected carefully on the mood of the House in Committee and have considered very carefully since then whether existing casinos can be permitted some additional commercial rights without jeopardising our essential priority of ensuring a cautious and gradual approach to the process of change.
	After careful consideration, and in the light of the improved protections offered by the new system of regulation to be administered by the Gambling Commission, the Government feel able to come forward with new proposals today. Those proposals are as follows.
	We propose to increase the maximum stake for existing casino jackpot gaming machines from its present 50 pence to £2, and we propose to increase the maximum prize for existing casino jackpot gaming machines from £2,000 to £4,000. We shall also allow casinos, within an overall enhanced limit of 20 machines, to provide a new form of gaming machine, with stakes and prizes the same as now offered by fixed-odds betting terminals in betting offices. We propose that all these changes relating to machines should be implemented as soon as practicable after Royal Assent, and certainly this year. We also propose that existing casinos should be entitled to install 40 automatic terminals for casino table games. Lastly, we propose that the statutory delay of 24 hours between joining a casino and first being permitted to play should be abolished as soon as practicable following Royal Assent, bringing forward the lifting of this burden by two years.
	Those changes will be given effect partly through the Bill and partly through the use of secondary legislation under the Gaming Act 1968. But I give a pledge today that the Government will implement the changes as soon as possible following the passage of the Bill.
	I recognise entirely that the proposals in this Bill on casinos have caused concern and controversy. People across the country have strong views and a certain anxiety about casino gambling. The Government respect those views and we agree that they should be taken slowly, in a way that Parliament and the Government can control. We also want the system to be fair to all sections of the casino industry, as we believe it is. Fair does not mean that everyone gets what they might want in an ideal world; it means that there are reasonable opportunities for all concerned to prosper with a framework where public protection is paramount.
	This package of new proposals is the final part of the overall package of reform for casinos. It has been a difficult process and the Government are committed to keeping close control over the issue as it develops. But, with the reassurances I have offered today about effective supervision in casinos, I hope that the Committee will agree that the Government now have the overall balance about right. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: I am very grateful, as I am sure others are, to the Minister as, after the first day in Committee, he kindly sent very fulsome explanatory notes to us all on some of the technicalities of the Bill.
	I refer particularly to Amendment No. 234A. I too would like to add my support to the measure which would reduce the number of regional casinos to just one. These new casinos will house some of the most addictive forms of gambling and if they are to be introduced into the United Kingdom at all, it is better to do so very slowly to minimise any potential explosion in the number of problem gamblers.
	I also pay tribute to some of the organisations that have consistently argued for better protection for children and vulnerable people in the Gambling Bill, including those from the faith communities, especially the Salvation Army and the Methodist Church.
	Of course, there are parts of the Bill that still disappoint. I am still deeply saddened that the Bill will leave the UK the only country in the developed world which allows children to gamble. That is all the more disappointing when one learns that more than 50,000 people signed a petition in the last few weeks of the Bill's progress calling on children to be prohibited from playing on fruit machines.
	I hope that the Government and the new Gambling Commission will continue to look at this issue—the Minister has already hinted at that—as it is one that has generated wide public interest and concern. Having said that, the Bill is in an infinitely better state than when it was first introduced to Parliament last October. On balance it is now better to have it than not. If nothing else, the whole process has shone the spotlight on the hidden addiction of problem gambling. I hope that children and vulnerable people will always be put first in social legislation of this kind in the future.
	Will the Minister correct a misunderstanding of mine? I believe that under the powers of the Bill he has the ability to make orders. If that is the case, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House not to use order-making powers without a proper pilot period, without an independent impact assessment and without publishing it first in Parliament? If I am misguided on that, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.

Lord Blaker: Like the right reverend Prelate, I too wish to speak to Amendment No. 234A. I declare an interest in that for 28 years I was a Member of Parliament for Blackpool and, therefore, I have been deeply interested in the entertainment industry. It is very sensible to start with one licence as opposed to eight. If there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which is a new one, they will apply to only one as opposed to eight.
	Blackpool knows the entertainment industry inside out. It grew up with the entertainment industry and was a creature of the railways which were built to the Lancashire coast in the mid-19th century. It is also used to making innovations. We all know of the Blackpool Tower and the Tower Ballroom. Blackpool was the first town in Britain to have trams; the illuminations were invented in Blackpool; and we still have the Pleasure Beach which every year moves forward with terrifying rides on which I used to be obliged to ride to launch them when I was a Member of Parliament for that constituency. So Blackpool is doing much to remedy the tourism deficit that we suffer as a country. I believe that a casino in Blackpool will help the town to strengthen that role. Blackpool needs regeneration. The days of the Wakes Weeks disappeared some time ago. Foreign travel has provided very serious competition to all our tourist towns.
	The mobility of the British people, because they now almost all have motor cars, has adversely affected our traditional holiday resorts. So the pattern in Blackpool, as in other seaside towns, is now very much the day visitor as opposed to the two weeks' stay of the Wakes Weeks tourist. It has meant a decline in investment in Blackpool, which has been suffering for the past couple of decades. A casino would enormously help the regeneration of Blackpool.
	My last point is that the people of Blackpool are very keen to have a casino. This is the view of all three parties in the town. The Labour Party is the largest party, but the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties agree on the importance of a casino for Blackpool. That is also the view of businesses in the town and of most of the residents, with a very few exceptions. There will always be some opposition in whatever place the casino is.
	I conclude by saying that I believe that Blackpool has all the qualities necessary to make a success of the first casino.

Baroness Thornton: I refer to Amendment No. 243A. I realise at this stage in the Bill that comments and questions are not very welcome. I start by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on the way he has conducted the discussions on the Bill by paper. I think that he has created new methods for grouping and discussing things on a Bill, from which perhaps we could learn something for the future.
	My concern—and I am happy to have this answered in writing—is that if the amendment we passed in Committee is carried through and proof of identity works properly, it seems to me that this amendment—and I am always in favour of protecting children and young people—is not necessary. If, however, this amendment is being proposed by the Government because of a deal they have made with the Opposition to drop or somehow change the amendment agreed earlier in Committee, I am puzzled and dismayed by that.
	My second brief point is that those of us who are concerned with protecting children will want to look at the matter very carefully, because I am not sure that this amendment affords protection. I heard the words my noble friend said and then I looked at the words here. I am not absolutely sure that this is as robust a protection as one would desire for children. Certainly later on when we are looking at codes of practice we will wish to look at that more carefully.

Lord Greaves: I wish to speak particularly to Amendments Nos. 234A and 235. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment which I tabled as Amendment No. 235 to reduce the number of regional casinos to one. I am not sure that they have not been dragged kicking and screaming to that position by the other parties. Nevertheless, I congratulate them on it.
	I also congratulate the Government—it would be churlish of me not to—on their superior grammar. The Minister referred to the fact that the Government had discovered that singular nouns in English normally do not take an "s", which was something that had escaped me. But then I thought, "Well, the Government have parliamentary draftsmen, haven't they, and this is the kind of thing they must be good at". So I think that is a good move.
	In fact, I would congratulate both Opposition Front Benches generally on the changes which they have achieved to the Bill during the wash-up. I say that to the Conservative Front Bench as well as to my own. I do not agree with all the changes; I think that some of them are wrong. Nevertheless, overall the Bill is a better Bill, or perhaps a less bad Bill in some respects—there are huge parts of this Bill which are good—than it was when it first came to this House.
	The wash-up process is not very desirable, with deals done not so much in smoke-filled rooms nowadays but certainly behind "closed doors" rather than on the Floor of the House, where they ought to be seen to be done. Nevertheless, I suspect that the Bill, when it is enacted, will be better than it would have been had we done things the proper, democratic way. That might have resulted in lots of ping-pong, with messages delivered up and down the corridors every two hours and eventually your Lordships having to give in to the elected House, as happens so often. The wash-up is perhaps an opportunity for the opposition parties to exercise a bit more power, which is a good thing. For those of us who were not part of that process, it is all a bit confusing and bewildering.
	I tabled an amendment to reduce the number of casino premises licences to one on the basis that, although it should be possible to have an experiment, there ought to be just one on something as big as this. The noble Lord spoke about Blackpool, although the Bill does not state where the one regional casino will be. That decision is subject to the processes laid down in the Bill; the Government must decide. Bids and offers must be made. The newspapers are full of suggestions that the location will be Blackpool, but it may be somewhere else. If it is Blackpool, I hope that caution will be exercised.
	The noble Lord suggested that people in Blackpool were dancing in the streets at the prospect of a regional casino, but I am not sure that that is entirely the case. Blackpool Council was almost unanimously in favour of a casino—some Liberal Democrat councillors oppose it. The council and the main organisations in the town have united to mount an extremely effective presentation and campaign in favour of a casino in Blackpool.
	I do not know whether people in Blackpool generally would favour a casino when all the implications and arguments for and against one had been put forward. I am told by friends in Blackpool that it is by no means clear that people in the town are in favour of a casino; they believe that people are not. I challenge Blackpool Council or any other council wishing to submit a proposal for a regional casino, particularly somewhere such as Blackpool, where it would dominate the town, unlike in Manchester or Birmingham, to hold a referendum. Edinburgh City Council held a referendum on its controversial congestion charging scheme. Some said that it was foolish to hold a referendum; it had the guts to do so, but it did not get its own way. If Blackpool councillors want a regional casino, they should hold a referendum among their people; otherwise, they cannot prove that people in Blackpool really want one.
	Having said that, it would be churlish of me not to welcome the Government's acceptance, by some means or other, of my amendment in all but its grammar.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: There are in the Chamber at this late hour five members of the joint scrutiny committee that looked at the draft gambling Bill. Noble Lords will recall that that Bill is very different from the one that we are approving today.
	The committee was completely united on the need for new gambling legislation, the establishment of the Gambling Commission and new regulations to take account of the changes in technology that have occurred since the last occasion on which Parliament reviewed the law on gambling. If the price of getting that legislation is that there must be fewer casinos than the Government would have preferred, it is worth paying.
	There was considerable unease in the joint scrutiny committee about the prospect of a free market applying to where the new large regional casinos should be located. One of the ironies of the free market argument was that, if there were to be a significant number of regional casinos elsewhere in the north-west, the one place where one would not finish up was Blackpool. The circle has now turned completely, and it seems very probable that the process that the Government are setting up will come to the logical conclusion that Blackpool is the right place.
	I do not intend to repeat the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, although I agreed with every word of it. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to say that there is substantial opposition in the town. Certainly, the Joint Scrutiny Committee was satisfied by the strength of support that we found at all levels—from councillors and elsewhere.
	It is interesting that the press release put out by the Conservative Party earlier this week in the name of Mr John Whittingdale states:
	"We have . . . told the Government that we will accept the establishment of just one regional casino as a prototype, in order to assess its impact. Its location should be a leisure resort where the regeneration potential is greatest. The case for locating such a casino in Blackpool is very strong".
	I do not disagree with that. I do not expect my noble friend to comment on it, but I am sure that the team of wise people that he sets up will take account of what the Conservative Party has said, what the leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers said so forcefully earlier and what a number of other Members of this House have said in favour of giving Blackpool the opportunity to prove whether or not regeneration can be achieved through casino development.
	The Government are sensible to agree, through the usual channels, to allow that to happen. It is crucial that we pass the Bill tonight. I commend the work that my noble friend Lord McIntosh has done in that respect.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was a member of the Joint Select Committee. I speak in that capacity, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about our attitude to the Bill and the changes that have latterly occurred. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on having been the first person to select the number that the Government have now adopted. He and I have a curious idiosyncratic allegiance and alliance on a series of bits of legislation, and I am delighted to see that he has maintained his usual standard.
	I am conscious that the Government have powers under Clause 173(4) for influencing the choice of where the one casino will be. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, which was a highly coherent and eloquent observation about Blackpool. However, Blackpool was, as I recall, the first entity outside London to make an approach to the Joint Select Committee and to make it clear that it would be necessary for us to make visits outside London in order to see what was going on on the ground. Indeed, that prompted our first visit outside London.
	I echo the comments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, from Mr Whittingdale. If there is a strong motivation in the legislation for using the regional casino concept as an instrument of urban regeneration and if the Bill affords power only to have a single casino as a pilot project, there is a strong case for having that pilot project in an area where leisure provision specifically has played a singular and notable part in the past.
	I say that, in particular, because it is important that the regional casino should not simply be thought of as a casino but as one that has the same comprehensive and integrated approach to leisure activity that some Members of the Committee saw on a visit to France. Since Blackpool has those specifications, it represents a potentially extremely apposite test-bed for the first pilot project to be run.

Baroness Buscombe: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind words about the so-called deal that has been struck. We certainly have some sympathy on these Benches for what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said about the wash-up. In many senses, it is not satisfactory, but the truth is that we have a Prime Minister who has chosen to go to the country after fewer than four years of this Parliament.
	Right from the start, the Bill has been treated as a tail-end Charlie. Tonight is no exception. It was known this morning that this is the one Bill that is now uncontentious and widely acceptable, yet we are put on last, having seen all the contentious Bills taken first. Sometimes I question whether the Government feel that this legislation really is a priority.
	We have always made it clear that we support much in the Bill, in particular the establishment of the Gambling Commission and the regulation of remote gambling. Those issues have been largely uncontentious. We also agree with noble Lords who have said tonight that it is important that these measures reach the statute book as soon as possible. To that extent, we are pleased to have reached the stage where we shall see the Bill pass.
	On regional casinos, we have felt strongly about this from the start. I said at Second Reading words to the effect that the question of the number of regional casinos was almost irrelevant because it is to be a complete shot in the dark. We are talking about a huge cultural step change in considering regional casinos in the form of resorts or leisure facilities—whatever they may be called. This is a very different cultural concept from anything we have experienced hitherto in this country. So, after much thought and consideration and taking into account all that has been said in both Houses in the brief time we have had to debate the matter, along with the extensive input from beyond your Lordships' House, we feel that this precautionary measure should be taken. I use the words of the Minister in agreeing that we should begin with the cautionary measure of having one test case. We are grateful that the Government have conceded and accepted that approach. The deal will allow this Bill to go through.
	I want to add my support to all noble Lords who have referred to Blackpool. I was keen to echo the words of my honourable friend Mr John Whittingdale, who I see is here with us, but that has already been done for me by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to whom I am extremely grateful. Of course it is not for us to dictate which town or city should be lucky enough to have this opportunity, if they deem it right. But I have to say that Blackpool has made an extraordinarily strong case. We have always said, as have the Government, that the priority must be regeneration. The case for locating a casino in an established leisure resort away from the doorstep seems entirely sensible.
	I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who suggested that perhaps people would be dancing in the streets of Blackpool tonight. I have to say to the noble Lord that only a short while ago I spoke to the chief executive of Blackpool Council who made it absolutely clear that whatever is said tonight in your Lordships' House, the people of Blackpool are not complacent. There is no question about that. They know that this is not in the bag and that a job has to be done. But it is clear that Blackpool representatives have worked hard to persuade noble Lords and others that the resort has a strong case. Indeed, that case has been strengthened by my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville.
	I want to put one question to the Minister. He said that under the affirmative order, it would be possible to introduce more regional casinos. I believe he said that it would not be ruled out at a later stage to provide for additional casinos by affirmative order. On what basis would those additional casinos be introduced? Is it a question of demand, in which case what kind of tests will be used to assess it? Can the Minister reassure us that they will not be introduced as the result of pressure put on the Government by commercial companies or local authorities? Given the speed with which this Bill is passing through all its stages, we want to feel comfortable that all the necessary considerations and consultations will be taken carefully into account to ensure that the test case has proved successful and that the impact has not been derogatory.
	At this point I am looking straight at the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who I know feels as strongly as I do about child protection. I strongly support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell in relation to the need to consider the issues of child protection and problem gambling. The social impact is of crucial importance. It was the priority of our debates on the first day in Committee and I wish to question the Minister briefly on that point.
	That is all I have to say in relation to regional casinos. However, I wish to respond briefly to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in regard to identification for entry into gaming areas. The noble Baroness knows that I felt strongly enough about this issue to bring forward an amendment on the first day in Committee and to press it to a vote. That was not easy because the Minister was seeking to reassure me in Committee that the amendment was not necessary. However, I felt that it was necessary—I do not regret it—and I am grateful that the amendment was passed.
	That said, however, since then the Minister has persuaded me that we should accept Amendment No. 243A in lieu of our amendment. I hope the Committee will support me in that. I have considered the amendment with care and I have heard what the noble Baroness has said. Her concern perhaps is that what the Minister has said in relation to the amendment does not add up to what is stated in the amendment itself.
	After much thought, I have decided that we should accept the amendment because, in a sense, it is rather more flexible in regard to supervision and what may be introduced in the years to come. The test case regional casino will not be established for some years, by which time it is hoped and assumed that technology will have developed such that the wording of our amendment perhaps might be otiose or anachronistic. Methods of testing individual identification in order to check age will have improved, and I have decided that we should be sensible and leave it to the Gambling Commission to "watch that space". It is mandatory that it should consider and issue one or more codes of practice in regard to access to casino premises for children and young persons. I hope that begins to clarify the point.
	That is all I have to say. We are grateful for the concessions that the Government have made. However, when we are in government—which will be following the election—I can reassure the Committee here and now that we will proceed with care with this legislation when it is put in place.

Lord Clement-Jones: The group of amendments brought forward by the Minister is absolutely crucial to the agreements that have been reached between the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the Minister for tabling the amendments, which hide a considerable amount of work carried out by officials and those who have had discussions with the Minister and his colleagues. We on these Benches agree that they broadly improve the Bill and emphasise the precautionary approach.
	To that extent—and I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said—I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the issue of identity. The government amendments address the key issues that we raised in principle on the first day in Committee, despite the fact that they do not go as far as referring to photographic identification. We shall see the upshot of this when, in a sense, the experiment is carried out. We will then be able to assess whether or not this really is a proper precautionary approach or whether a firmer approach should be taken.
	Finally, I could not stand here without mentioning Blackpool. I will draw the attention of my noble friend Lord McNally, my leader in this House, to the words of all noble Lords who have mentioned Blackpool, including myself. We will not be allowed by competition law to stack the cards—if that is the right expression in the context of this Bill—in favour of Blackpool, but it will depend on the strength of its case. I think that all noble Lords agree that it has a very strong case indeed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to everybody who has expressed support for different parts of this group of amendments. I do not think that anybody has expressed support for everything, but it is a pretty satisfactory state of affairs as far as I am concerned.
	Let me assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell that the petition he referred to is in place in the office of the Secretary of State. I cannot promise that she has studied every signature on every sheet in every box, but I assure the right reverend Prelate that she cannot go to work without being reminded of the Salvation Army logo on the side of the petition boxes.
	The right reverend Prelate is quite right that as a result of this process we know more than we did about problem gambling, and we have brought that to the fore. That has been true of the process right the way through, from the Budd report to the Government response to the Greenway committee and to the proceedings in Parliament. We may know more than we did, but we do not know anything like enough. I still think that much more needs to be done in researching problem gambling before we can be certain that we have our policy objectives right. There are indications which we have followed, but I repeat the assurance about continuing with prevalent studies and going further in terms of research into problem gambling.
	The right reverend Prelate asked me to give an assurance that when we use our order-making powers, we will test them and consult widely. I can certainly give him that assurance. The Gambling Commission will of course be critical in advising us on what order-making powers should be used and how they should be used. We will also be consulting widely, as I have said on more than one occasion, not just with the industry but with the public and those who are expert on issues of problem gambling.
	I shall not be drawn down the path of support for any one location for a single regional casino. It would be absurd for a Minister to bring forward a Bill which institutes an independent advisory panel to say where regional large and small casinos would be and then say, "By the way, we have decided the answer to the question we are setting you". Anybody with any sensitivity will have heard the views that have been expressed in the House but they are not going to be expressed by me.
	My noble friend Lady Thornton asked about Amendment No. 243A. I can confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is right that we have tabled Amendment No. 243A in preference to the amendments which were debated on the first day of the Committee stage. We took the view that behind those amendments were two particular problems, those of money laundering and preventing access by children. There were problems with the amendments which were debated before, which I shall not go into, but we believe that these amendments address those issues, and I am glad that there has been agreement on that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked when and in what circumstances we think it would be safe and prudent to permit more than one regional casino. It is not possible to predict that at the moment. We would have to make a judgment that balanced the risks of enlarging the number of people who would be affected against the risk of drawing the initial phase too narrowly to produce reliable evidence. In due course, it might be possible to remove numerical limits altogether, but we would not rush to any such judgment and I can repeat the assurance that I gave the noble Baroness that this decision would be one that would be taken by Parliament.
	On the basis of the general support that we have had for this group of amendments, I commend Amendment No. 102A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Gambling]:
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
	Clause 50 [Employment to provide facilities for gambling]:
	[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
	Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Employment in casino, &c.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.]
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Age limit for Category D gaming machines]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 24, line 41, at end insert—
	"(3) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) the Commission,
	(b) one or more persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses, and
	(c) one or more persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge about social problems relating to gambling.
	(4) An order under subsection (1) may apply to a class of Category D gaming machine determined by reference to—
	(a) the nature of the facilities for gambling which are made available on the machine,
	(b) the nature or value of a prize offered by the machine,
	(c) the manner in which the machine operates, or
	(d) any other matter."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 59 agreed to.
	Clause 60 [Meaning of employment]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 25, line 15, at end insert—
	"(2) Where a person commits an offence under this Part by employing a person or by being employed, he shall be treated as committing the offence on each day during any part of which the employment continues."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 61 agreed to.
	Clause 62 [Reasonable belief about person's age]:
	[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
	Clause 62 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 111:
	After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
	"USE OF CHILDREN IN ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
	(1) Nothing in this Part renders unlawful—
	(a) anything done, in the performance of his functions, by a constable, an enforcement officer or an authorised person, or
	(b) anything done by a child or young person at the request of a constable, enforcement officer or authorised person acting in the performance of his functions.
	(2) Subsection (1) applies to an order under section 58 as to the provisions of this Part."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 63 [Nature of licence]:
	[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 115:
	Page 26, line 16, after "general" insert "operating"
	Page 26, line 18, after "general" insert "operating"
	Page 26, line 24, after "software" insert "operating"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
	Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Combined licence]:
	[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
	Clause 66 agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Application]:
	[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
	Clause 67 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Consideration of application: general principles]:
	[Amendments Nos. 119 to 124 not moved.]
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
	Clause 71 [Procedure]:
	[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
	Clause 71 agreed to.
	Clause 72 agreed to.
	Clause 73 [General conditions imposed by Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
	Clause 73 agreed to.
	Clause 74 [General conditions: procedure]:
	[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]
	Clause 74 agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Individual condition imposed by Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
	Clause 75 agreed to.
	Clause 76 [Condition imposed by Secretary of State]:
	[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]
	Clause 76 agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Scope of powers to attach conditions]:
	[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
	Clause 77 agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Requirement for personal licence]:
	[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
	Clause 78 agreed to.
	Clause 79 [Credit and inducements]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 138:
	Page 35, line 17, leave out "the licensed activities," and insert "gambling,"
	Page 35, line 18, after "arrange" insert ", permit"
	Page 35, line 19, leave out "the licensed activities." and insert "gambling."
	Page 35, line 20, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) But the condition in subsection (2) shall not prevent the licensee from permitting the installation and use on the premises of a machine enabling cash to be obtained on credit from a person (the "credit provider") provided that—
	(a) the licensee has no other commercial connection with the credit provider in relation to gambling,
	(b) the licensee neither makes nor receives any payment or reward (whether by way of commission, rent or otherwise) in connection with the machine, and
	(c) any conditions about the nature, location or use of the machine attached by virtue of section 73, 75 or 76 are complied with."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 80 and 81 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
	Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.
	Clause 84 [Gaming machines]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 140:
	Page 37, line 32, at end insert—
	"(2) An operating licence may be subject to a condition (whether imposed by virtue of section 73, 75 or 76) that a specified gaming machine may not be made available for use in reliance on the licence if the Commission has notified the licensee in writing that the manufacture, supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of the machine—
	(a) was not carried out in reliance on a gaming machine technical operating licence, or
	(b) did not comply with standards established under or by virtue of section 94."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 140 is a practical measure, allowing the commission to notify licence holders that the gaming machines that they use have been manufactured or supplied without a licence or in breach of technical standards. We would expect all operators to take proper steps to check such matters, but there may be times when the commission is aware of problems, when operators are not. Once notified, conditions can be attached to the operator's licence requiring such machines not to be used. That will help to protect the public from illegal machines.
	Amendment No. 146 is a drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 233, 274 and 275 will allow casinos to provide automated casino games in addition to their gaming machine entitlement. We propose that casinos should be permitted no more than 40 player positions. The Gambling Commission will then control the specification of those machines by licence conditions.
	Amendments Nos. 269 to 271, 276, 277 and 281 are drafting amendments designed to ensure that the definitions and scope of powers in Part 10 are effective.
	Amendment No. 272 addresses a point raised by the noble Lord, the Lord Mancroft, at Second Reading. The noble Lord said that it was unreasonable for the definition in Clause 229 to prohibit lottery vending machines that also displayed the result of the lottery. We have thought about that, and we are content for such machines to be outside the controls of Part 10. However, we need to retain control over the speed at which results can be displayed. If they were displayed every 30 seconds, for example, they could be very addictive. Amendment No. 272 also requires Ministers to set a minimum time before the result of the lottery can be displayed on the machine. We will gladly discuss that matter with the industry and the Gaming Board.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 273A, 275, 319B, 319C, 319D, 319E and 326A ensure that seaside and other arcades will continue to be able to offer prize bingo by machine, outside the normal gaming machine regime. The amendments also resolve some related technical difficulties in Part 13 of the Bill. In particular, they ensure that forms of prize bingo where the prize is in part determined by the progress of the game—for example, where an enhanced prize can be offered to anyone calling "House" within a set number of numbers—can continue. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
	Clause 87 [Remote operating licence]:
	[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 142 and 143:
	Page 38, line 14, after "remote" insert "operating"
	Page 38, line 16, at end insert—
	"(2A) Where the Commission issues a remote operating licence it may exclude, generally or to a specified extent or for specified purposes, the condition that would otherwise be attached by virtue of subsection (2), if the Commission is satisfied that the exclusion is reasonably consistent with pursuit of the licensing objectives."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 88 to 90 agreed to.
	Clause 91 [Pool betting operating licence]:
	[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
	Clause 91 agreed to.
	Clauses 92 and 93 agreed to.
	Clause 94 [Gaming machine technical operating licence]:
	[Amendment No. 145 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Page 42, line 4, at end insert "or parts of gaming machines."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 95 agreed to.
	Clause 96 [Lottery operating licences]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 146A:
	Page 44, line 7, leave out "for a county in which there are no district councils,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 97 [Mandatory conditions of lottery operating licence]:
	[Amendments Nos. 147 to 152 not moved.]
	Clause 97 agreed to.
	Clause 98 [Annual fee]:
	[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
	Clause 98 agreed to.
	Clause 99 [Change of circumstance]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 46, line 21, at end insert—
	"(a) the prescribed fee, and
	(b) either—
	(i) "
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 100 to 108 agreed to.
	Clause 109 [Power to limit duration]:
	[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
	Clause 109 agreed to.
	Clause 110 [Renewal of licence]:
	[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
	Clause 110 agreed to.
	Clause 111 agreed to.
	Clause 112 [Lapse]:
	[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
	Clause 112 agreed to.
	Clauses 113 and 114 agreed to.
	Clause 115 [Regulatory powers]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Page 53, line 42, at end insert—
	"(ca) make, amend or remove an exclusion under section 87(2A);"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 116 [Suspension]:
	[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
	Clause 116 agreed to.
	Clause 117 [Revocation]:
	[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]
	Clause 117 agreed to.
	Clause 118 [Conditions for suspension or revocation]:
	[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
	Clause 118 agreed to.
	Clause 119 [Financial penalty]:
	[Amendments Nos. 163 to 165 not moved.]
	Clause 119 agreed to.
	Clause 120 agreed to.
	Clause 121 [Levy]:
	[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
	Clause 121 agreed to.
	Clauses 122 to 124 agreed to.
	Schedule 7 agreed to.
	Clauses 125 to 138 agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Gambling Appeals Tribunal]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 168 to 175:
	Page 172, line 7, leave out "a member" and insert "one or more members"
	Page 172, line 7, leave out "its"
	Page 172, line 8, leave out "the" and insert "a"
	Page 172, line 14, leave out "or"
	Page 172, line 16, at end insert ", or
	"(c) he is a barrister or solicitor in Northern Ireland of at least seven years' standing."
	Page 172, line 25, at end insert—
	"(4) At the end of Schedule 5 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8) (offices to which retirement provisions apply) add—
	"President or other member of the Gambling Appeals Tribunal"."
	Page 172, line 33, at end insert—
	"(2) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8) (offices qualifying for pension) at the end of the list under the heading Members of tribunals add—
	"President of the Gambling Appeals Tribunal"."
	Page 174, line 21, at end insert—

"Disqualification, &c.

15 At the appropriate place in Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24) (disqualifying offices) insert—
	"The Gambling Appeals Tribunal.""
	16 At the end of Schedule 11 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41) (office-holders barred from legal practice) add—
	"President of the Gambling Appeals Tribunal"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 139 to 143 agreed to.
	Clause 144 [Rules]:
	[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
	Clause 144 agreed to.
	Clauses 145 to 147 agreed to.
	Clause 148 [Nature of licence]:
	[Amendments Nos. 176A to 179 not moved.]
	Clause 148 agreed to.
	Clause 149 [Form of licence]:
	[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
	Clause 149 agreed to.
	Clause 150 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 181 to 183 not moved.]
	Clause 151 [Principles to be applied]:
	[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
	Clause 151 agreed to.
	Clause 152 [Delegation of licensing authority functions: England and Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 187:
	Page 68, line 21, leave out "power under section 164 is" and insert "functions under section 164 are"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
	Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 153 agreed to.
	Clause 154 [Register]:
	[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
	Clause 154 agreed to.
	Clause 155 [Responsible authorities]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 190:
	Page 70, line 25, after "fire" insert "and rescue"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
	Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 156 [Interested party]:
	[Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 not moved.]
	Clause 156 agreed to.
	Clause 157 [Making of application]:
	[Amendments Nos. 194 to 196 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 197 and 198:
	Page 71, line 41, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	Page 71, line 42, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 157, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 158 [Notice of application]:
	[Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 not moved.]
	Clause 158 agreed to.
	Clause 159 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
	Clause 160 agreed to.
	Clause 161 [Determination of application]:
	[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
	Clause 161 agreed to.
	Clause 162 [Grant of application]:
	[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:
	Page 73, line 42, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	Page 73, line 44, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 162, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 163 [Rejection of application]:
	[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 207 and 208:
	Page 74, line 19, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	Page 74, line 21, after "prescribed" insert "by regulations made"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 163, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 164 [Resolution not to issue casino licences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 209 to 219 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 220:
	Page 75, line 5, at end insert—
	"(7) The Secretary of State may by order require a licensing authority to consider whether or not to pass a resolution under subsection (1).
	(8) An order under subsection (7) may—
	(a) be directed to a particular licensing authority or to a class or description of licensing authority;
	(b) require the licensing authority to consult such persons or classes of persons as they think are likely to be affected by the resolution (having regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State);
	(c) require the licensing authority to take other procedural steps;
	(d) specify a period within which the consideration must take place;
	(e) require consideration once or at specified intervals."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 164, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 165 [Mandatory conditions]:
	[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
	Clause 165 agreed to.
	Clause 166 [Default conditions]:
	[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
	Clause 166 agreed to.
	Clauses 167 and 168 agreed to.
	Clause 169 [Stakes, &c.]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 223:
	Page 76, line 19, at end insert—
	"(2) The prohibition in subsection (1)(b) shall not prevent the imposition by virtue of section 165 of a condition about fees for admission to a track."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 169, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 170 [Gaming machines]:
	[Amendments Nos. 224 to 228 not moved.]
	Clause 170 agreed to.
	Clause 171 agreed to.
	Clause 172 [Casino premises licence]:
	[Amendments Nos. 229 to 232 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 233:
	Page 78, line 30, at end insert—
	"(5A) Regulations under section 165 shall, in particular, make provision in relation to casino premises licences imposing limits in respect of machines of a kind that would be gaming machines but for section 229(2)(g); and the limits may, in particular, operate by reference to—
	(a) the number of machines, or
	(b) the number of players that the machines are designed or adapted to accommodate."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
	Clause 172, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 173 [Casino premises licence: overall limits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 234A:
	Page 78, line 38, leave out "eight casino premises licences" and insert "one casino premises licence"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 235 to 243 not moved.]
	Clause 173, as amended, agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 243A to 244:
	After Clause 173, insert the following new clause—
	"CASINO PREMISES LICENCE: ACCESS BY CHILDREN
	(1) The Commission shall issue one or more codes of practice under section 24 about access to casino premises for children and young persons.
	(2) The code or codes issued in accordance with subsection (1) shall, in particular—
	(a) require the holder of a casino premises licence to take specified steps to ensure that no child or young person enters premises or a part of premises which it would be an offence under section 46 to permit him to enter ("prohibited premises or areas"),
	(b) for that purpose, require the holder of a casino premises licence to ensure—
	(i) that each entrance to prohibited premises or to a prohibited area is supervised by one or more persons whose responsibilities include ensuring compliance with the code of practice ("the supervisor"), and
	(ii) that arrangements are made to require evidence of age to be produced by any person seeking admission to prohibited premises or to a prohibited area unless the supervisor, reasonably, is certain that the person seeking admission is an adult, and
	(c) make provision about the nature of evidence that may be used for the purpose of arrangements made in accordance with paragraph (b)(ii).
	(3) A casino premises licence shall by virtue of this section be subject to the condition that the licensee ensures compliance with any relevant code of practice issued in accordance with subsection (1)."
	After Clause 173, insert the following new clause—
	"CREDIT
	(1) This section applies to—
	(a) casino premises licences, and
	(b) bingo premises licences.
	(2) A premises licence to which this section applies shall by virtue of this section be subject to the condition that the licensee does not—
	(a) give credit in connection with gambling authorised by the licence, or
	(b) participate in, arrange, permit or knowingly facilitate the giving of credit in connection with gambling authorised by the licence.
	(3) But the condition in subsection (2) shall not prevent the licensee from permitting the installation and use on the premises of a machine enabling cash to be obtained on credit from a person (the "credit provider") provided that—
	(a) the licensee has no other commercial connection with the credit provider in relation to gambling,
	(b) the licensee neither makes nor receives any payment or reward (whether by way of commission, rent or otherwise) in connection with the machine, and
	(c) any conditions about the nature, location or use of the machine attached by virtue of section 165, 166 or 167 are complied with.
	(4) In this section "credit" has the same meaning as in section 79."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
	Schedule 9 [Applications for Casino Premises Licences]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 246:
	Page 176, line 15, at end insert—
	"7A (1) An appeal may be brought under section 200(1) or (2) in respect of a decision under paragraph 4.
	(2) While an appeal under section 200 could be brought by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), or has been brought by virtue of that sub-paragraph and has not yet been either finally determined or abandoned, the licensing authority shall take no action under paragraph 5(2).
	(3) Sub-paragraph (2) has effect in place of section 202 in respect of an appeal by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
	(4) No appeal may be brought under section 200 in respect of a decision under paragraph 5."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 174 [Door supervision]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 249:
	Page 79, line 28, leave out from "167)" to end of line 29 and insert "subsection (3) shall apply in relation to the licence."
	Page 79, line 33, leave out from "damage" to end of line 35.
	Page 79, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"(3) If the person carrying out the guarding mentioned in subsection (2) is required by the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (c. 12) to hold a licence under that Act authorising the guarding, the requirement under that Act shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it were a condition of the premises licence attached by virtue of this section."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
	Clause 174, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 175 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 250A:
	After Clause 175, insert the following new clause—
	"POOL BETTING ON DOG RACES
	(1) A betting premises licence in respect of premises other than a dog track shall by virtue of this section be subject to the condition that pool bets may not be accepted in reliance on the licence in respect of dog-racing other than in accordance with arrangements made with the occupier of the dog track on which the racing takes place.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order repeal this section.
	(3) A repeal by order under subsection (2) shall cause the condition attached by subsection (1) to premises licences in force on the date of the repeal to lapse in respect of anything done on or after the date of the repeal.
	(4) This section shall cease to have effect at the end of 31st December 2012 (and the condition attached by subsection (1) to premises licences in force on that date shall lapse in respect of anything done after that date)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clauses 176 and 177 agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 251:
	After Clause 177, insert the following new clause—
	"CHRISTMAS DAY
	A premises licence shall, by virtue of this section, be subject to the condition that the premises shall not be used to provide facilities for gambling on Christmas Day."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 178 [Annual fee]:
	[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 253:
	Page 81, line 8, at end insert "; and "prescribed" means prescribed"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
	Clause 178, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 179 agreed to.
	Clause 180 [Change of circumstance]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 255 and 256:
	Page 82, line 19, at end insert—
	"(a) the prescribed fee, and
	(b) either—
	(i) "
	Page 82, line 37, at end insert—
	"(9) In subsection (3)(a) "prescribed" means—
	(a) in relation to notification given to authorities in England and Wales, prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) in relation to notifications given to authorities in Scotland, prescribed by regulations made by the Scottish Ministers."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 180, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 181 to 195 agreed to.
	Clause 196 [Action following review]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 257:
	Page 91, line 19, at end insert "or remove or amend an exclusion"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 196, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 197 [Determination]:
	[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
	Clause 197 agreed to.
	Clauses 198 to 200 agreed to.
	Clause 201 [Process]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260:
	Page 93, line 22, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 93, line 24, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 201, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 202 to 204 agreed to.
	Clause 205 [Vehicles and vessels]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 261:
	Page 94, line 35, at end insert—
	"(1A) A premises licence in relation to a vessel may include a condition imposed by virtue of section 167 about the location of the vessel."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 205, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 206 [Fees]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 263:
	Page 95, line 32, leave out "in each financial year"
	Page 95, line 36, at end insert—
	"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a licensing authority shall compare income and costs in such manner, at such times and by reference to such periods as the authority, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State, think appropriate."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
	Clause 206, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 207 [Interpretation]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 265 and 266:
	Page 96, line 16, after "means" insert "(except where the contrary is provided)"
	Page 96, line 16, leave out "(except in sections 157, 162, 163, 178 and 184)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 207, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 208 to 214 agreed to.
	Clause 215 [Objections]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 266A:
	Page 99, line 23, leave out "21" and insert "14"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 215, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 216 and 217 agreed to.
	Clause 218 [Counter-notice]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 266B to 266D:
	Page 101, line 1, leave out "and"
	Page 101, line 2, at end insert ", and
	"(c) be given as soon as is reasonably practicable."
	Page 101, line 4, after "shall" insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 218, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 219 [Dismissal of objection]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 266E:
	Page 101, line 17, after "shall" insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 219, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 220 [Appeal]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 267 to 268B:
	Page 101, line 30, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 101, line 32, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	Page 101, line 33, leave out "21" and insert "14"
	Page 101, line 35, at end insert—
	"(3A) A person who was entitled to receive a copy of the temporary use notice under section 213 must determine whether to appeal, and institute any appeal, as soon as is reasonably practicable."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 220, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 221 [Endorsement of notice]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 268C and 268D:
	Page 102, line 22, leave out "21" and insert "14"
	Page 102, line 29, leave out "21" and insert "14"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 221, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 222 [Consideration by licensing authority: timing]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 268E:
	Page 103, line 11, leave out "two months" and insert "six weeks"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 222, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 223 to 228 agreed to.
	Clause 229 [Gaming machine]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 269 to 272:
	Page 106, line 20, after "communication" insert "(other than a computer)"
	Page 106, line 21, leave out "may" and insert "can"
	Page 106, line 24, after "on" insert "future"
	Page 106, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert "provided that the results of the lottery—
	"(i) are not determined by the machine, and
	(ii) are not announced by being displayed or communicated by the machine without there being an interval, between each entry to the lottery and the announcement, of at least such duration as the Secretary of State shall prescribe by order,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 273 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 273A to 277:
	Page 106, line 34, after "83(2)(b)" insert—
	"(ea) a machine is not a gaming machine if—
	(i) it is designed or adapted for the playing of bingo by way of prize gaming, and
	(ii) it is used in accordance with a condition attached to a gaming machine general operating licence under section 73 or 75 by virtue of section 83(2)(b),
	(eb) a machine is not a gaming machine if—
	(i) it is designed or adapted for the playing of bingo by way of prize gaming,
	(ii) it is made available for use in reliance on a family entertainment centre gaming machine permit or a prize gaming permit, and
	(iii) any requirements prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph in a code of practice under section 24, as to the specification of the machine or the circumstances in which it is made available for use, are complied with,"
	Page 106, line 34, leave out "and"
	Page 106, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert ", and
	(g) a machine is not a gaming machine by reason only of the fact that it is designed or adapted to enable individuals to play a real game of chance, if—
	(i) its design or adaptation is such that it does not require to be controlled or operated by a person employed or concerned in arranging for others to play the game,
	(ii) it is not designed or adapted for use in connection with a game the arrangements for which are controlled or operated by an individual, and
	(iii) it is used in accordance with a condition attached to a casino operating licence under section 73 or 75 by virtue of section 83(2)(b)."
	Page 107, line 8, at end insert—
	"(aa) a reference to a machine being designed or adapted for a purpose includes—
	(i) a reference to a computer being able to be used for that purpose (subject to subsection (2)), and
	(ii) a reference to any other machine to which anything has been done as a result of which it can reasonably be expected to be used for that purpose (subject to subsection (2)),"
	Page 107, line 19, leave out ""dual-use" computer" and insert ""dual-use computer""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 230 [Gaming machines: Categories A to D]:
	[Amendments Nos. 278 to 280 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 281:
	Page 108, line 2, at end insert—
	"(ca) the nature of the gambling for which the machine can be used;"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 282 and 283 not moved.]
	Clause 230, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 231 to 233 agreed to.
	Clause 234 [Use of machine]:
	[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
	Clause 234 agreed to.
	Clauses 235 and 236 agreed to.
	Clause 237 [Manufacture, supply, &c.]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 285 and 286:
	Page 109, line 24, leave out "238" and insert "242"
	Page 111, line 2, leave out "233" and insert "237"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 237, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 238 to 241 agreed to.
	Schedule 10 [Family Entertainment Centre Gaming Machine Permits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 287:
	Page 177, line 16, leave out "paragraph 5(d)" and insert "paragraphs 5(d) and 21(2)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 288 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 289 to 292:
	Page 177, line 37, leave out "Section 152" and insert "Sections 152 and 153"
	Page 177, line 38, leave out "it has" and insert "they have"
	Page 181, line 32, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 181, line 34, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 242 to 252 agreed to.
	Schedule 11 [Exempt Lotteries]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 293 to 295:
	Page 188, leave out lines 19 to 24.
	Page 192, line 20, leave out "commission" and insert "local justice"
	Page 192, line 23, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 253 to 257 agreed to.
	Clause 258 [Preventing repetitive play]:
	[Amendment No. 296 not moved.]
	Clause 258 negatived.
	Clause 259 agreed to.
	Clause 260 [Territorial application]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 297:
	Page 117, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
	"(2) But this Part does not apply in relation to a lottery if—
	(a) no person in Great Britain does anything by virtue of which he becomes a participant in the lottery, and
	(b) no person in Great Britain possesses tickets for the lottery with a view to selling or supplying them to a person in Great Britain who thereby becomes a participant in the lottery.
	(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 252 or 253 to show that he reasonably believed that this Part did not and would not apply to the lottery, by reason of subsection (2) above."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 260, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 261 to 269 agreed to.
	Schedule 12 [Club Gaming Permits and Club Machine Permits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 302:
	Page 201, line 42, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 202, line 1, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	Page 203, line 11, leave out "Section 152" and insert "Sections 152 and 153"
	Page 203, line 12, leave out "it has" and insert "they have"
	Page 203, line 26, leave out "1(2)(e)," and insert "2(e),"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 270 to 272 agreed to.
	Clause 273 [Application of sections 274 to 279]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 303 and 303A:
	Page 123, line 21, after "premises" insert "(other than a vehicle)"
	Page 123, line 29, at end insert—
	"(2) In those sections a reference to a licensing authority includes a reference to the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 273, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 274 to 276 agreed to.
	Clause 277 [Gaming machines: automatic entitlement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 304 to 306 not moved.]
	Clause 277 agreed to.
	Clause 278 agreed to.
	Schedule 13 [Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 307 to 309:
	Page 204, line 12, leave out "Section 152" and insert "Sections 152 and 153"
	Page 204, line 13, leave out "it has" and insert "they have"
	Page 206, line 30, after "7" insert "and 21"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 310 and 311 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 312 to 314:
	Page 208, line 32, leave out "or" and insert—
	"(aa) grant an application for a permit in respect of a smaller number of machines than that specified in the application or a different category of machines from that specified in the application (or both), or"
	Page 208, line 35, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 208, line 37, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 279 [Removal of exemption]:
	[Amendments Nos. 315 to 317 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 318 and 319:
	Page 126, line 26, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 126, line 28, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 279, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 280 [Permits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 319A:
	Page 127, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 280, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 281 and 282 agreed to.
	Clause 283 [Meaning of "prize gaming"]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 319B to 319E:
	Page 128, line 6, at end insert "or"
	Page 128, line 7, leave out "staked" and insert "paid for"
	Page 128, line 7, leave out second "or"
	Page 128, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 283, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 284 agreed to.
	Schedule 14 [Prize Gaming Permits]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 320 to 325:
	Page 210, line 16, leave out "5 and 20(2)" and insert "6(e) and 21(2)"
	Page 210, line 40, leave out "Section 152" and insert "Sections 152 and 153"
	Page 210, line 41, leave out "it has" and insert "they have"
	Page 214, line 8, after "constable," insert—
	"(aa) an enforcement officer,"
	Page 214, line 30, leave out "petty sessions" and insert "local justice"
	Page 214, line 32, leave out "justices' chief executive," and insert "designated officer,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 285 to 287 agreed to.
	Clause 288 [Conditions for prize gaming]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 326 and 326A:
	Page 129, line 20, at end insert "; and different limits may be prescribed in respect of different classes or descriptions of fee)."
	Page 129, line 29, leave out first "the" and insert "a"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 288, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 289 and 290 agreed to.
	Schedule 15 agreed to.
	Clauses 291 to 298 agreed to.
	Clause 299 [Authorised persons]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 327:
	Page 134, line 12, leave out paragraph (d).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 299, as amended, agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 328:
	After Clause 299, insert the following new clause—
	"COMPLIANCE
	A constable, enforcement officer or authorised person may undertake activities for the purpose of assessing—
	(a) compliance with provision made by or by virtue of this Act;
	(b) whether an offence is being committed under or by virtue of this Act."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 300 [Suspected offence]:
	[Amendment No. 329 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 330:
	Page 135, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) In the application of this section to Scotland, any reference to a justice of the peace is to be construed as a reference to the sheriff or a justice of the peace."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 300, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 301 to 310 agreed to.
	Clause 311 [Powers]:
	[Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 333 and 334:
	Page 138, line 25, after "taken" insert "in England and Wales"
	Page 138, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) Subsection (6) does not apply as respects the exercise of a power in relation to Scotland."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 311, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 312 [Dwellings]:
	[Amendment No. 335 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 336:
	Page 139, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) In the application of this section to Scotland, any reference to a justice of the peace is to be construed as a reference to the sheriff or a justice of the peace."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 312, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 313 to 315 agreed to.
	Clause 316 [Information]:
	[Amendment No. 337 not moved.]
	Clause 316 agreed to.
	Clauses 317 to 321 agreed to.
	Clause 322 [Regulations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 340:
	Page 142, line 5, at end insert—
	"(7A) Where a person commits an offence under this section by causing an advertisement to be displayed or made accessible, he shall be treated as committing the offence on each day during any part of which the advertisement is displayed or made accessible."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 341 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 342:
	Page 142, line 10, at end insert—
	"(9) In the application of subsection (7) to Scotland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 343 not moved.]
	Clause 322, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 323 agreed to.
	Clause 324 [Unlawful gambling]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 344:
	Page 143, line 16, at end insert—
	"(7A) Where a person commits an offence under this section by causing an advertisement to be displayed or made accessible, he shall be treated as committing the offence on each day during any part of which the advertisement is displayed or made accessible."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 324, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 325 [Foreign gambling]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 345 to 348:
	Page 143, line 20, at end insert "other than a lottery."
	Page 143, line 25, at end insert—
	"(2A) Subsection (2) shall apply to Gibraltar as it applies to EEA States."
	Page 143, line 26, after "country" insert "or place"
	Page 143, line 32, at end insert—
	"(5) In the application of subsection (4) to Scotland or Northern Ireland the reference to 51 weeks shall have effect as a reference to six months."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 325, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 326 to 330 agreed to.
	Clause 331 [Section 330: supplementary]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 349 and 350:
	Page 147, line 5, leave out "and"
	Page 147, line 6, at end insert—
	", and
	(g) section 147."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 331, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 332 to 337 agreed to.
	Clause 338 [Participation fees]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 351:
	Page 150, line 24, after "provision" insert "made by or by virtue"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 338, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 339 agreed to.
	Clause 340 [Prosecution by licensing authority]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 352 and 353:
	Page 151, line 31, leave out "and"
	Page 151, leave out line 32 and insert—
	"(n) paragraph 10 of Schedule 13, and
	(o) paragraph 20 of Schedule 14."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 340, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 341 and 342 agreed to.
	Clause 343 [Three-year licensing policy]:
	[Amendment No. 353A not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 354:
	Page 152, leave out line 25.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 355 not moved.]
	Clause 343, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 344 [Exchange of information]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 356:
	Page 153, line 5, leave out ", or the Commission,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 344, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 345 [Power to amend Schedule 6]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 357 to 359:
	Page 153, line 13, leave out "either Part" and insert "Part 1, 2 or 2A"
	Page 153, line 14, leave out "either Part" and insert "Part 1, 2 or 2A"
	Page 153, line 19, at end insert—
	"(3) An entry added to a list in Schedule 6 may specify a person or body or a class or description of persons or bodies.
	(4) The power to add, remove or vary a Note may be exercised generally or in relation to a specified person or body or class or description of persons or bodies."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 360 not moved.]
	Clause 345, as amended, agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 361:
	After Clause 345, insert the following new clause—
	"DATA PROTECTION
	Nothing in this Act authorises a disclosure which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 362 not moved.]
	Clause 346 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 363 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 363A:
	Page 154, line 9, at end insert—
	""enactment" includes an enactment comprised in, or an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 364 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 365 and 366:
	Page 154, line 34, at end insert—
	""licensed premises gaming machine permit" has the meaning given by section 278,"
	Page 155, leave out line 30.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 368 to 371:
	Page 156, line 12, leave out "and"
	Page 156, line 13, at end insert—
	"(c) a seaplane, and
	(d) an amphibious vehicle (other than a hovercraft within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59)),"
	Page 156, line 15, after "anything" insert ", other than a seaplane or an amphibious vehicle,"
	Page 156, line 16, leave out "and" and insert—
	"(aa) a hovercraft (within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59)), and"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 346, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 347 [Crown application]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 372:
	Page 157, line 19, at end insert—
	"(3) Section 40(3) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (c. 40) (conversion of reference to fire and rescue authority into reference to Her Majesty's Fire Inspectorate in relation to Crown premises) shall apply to a provision of this Act as it applies to provisions of that Act (but with the substitution for the reference to section 40(1) of a reference to subsection (1) above)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 347, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 348 [Regulations, orders and rules]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 373:
	Page 157, line 43, leave out "and"

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount the Deputy Chairman of Committees should have a seat; he deserves it.
	Amendments Nos. 373, 374 and 377A, the government amendments in this group, represent our acceptance of all the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform on the Bill. The committee recommended that the delegated powers in Clause 322 and, to a limited extent, Clause 345 be made subject to the affirmative procedure. I accept both those recommendations. I beg to move. I am sorry that I did not speak for longer.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I speak not only as a member of the Joint Committee but also as a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. We were extremely grateful when the Minister accepted our two recommendations. I have one brief footnote to add: the Minister accepted the recommendations on the very same day as we published our report making them. The electrical speed of that turnaround compares favourably with the general gestation of the Bill. That alacrity on the Minister's part seems a happy note as this Committee stage draws to a close.

Lord Roper: In view of the remarks just made and the noble Lord's earlier remarks, I wish to add that we have shown that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform can operate even during the period of wash-up. Therefore some of the earlier points about the failure of wash-up to deal with the remarks of his committee are not necessarily as serious as he suggested.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the speed is electronic rather than electrical.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 374 to 376:
	Page 157, line 44, at end insert ", and
	"(j) section 322."
	Page 158, line 1, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a Minister of the Crown"
	Page 158, line 6, leave out "subsection (7)" and insert "subsections (7) and (7A)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 377 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 377A and 378:
	Page 158, line 8, leave out "or 345 or" and insert ", to an order under section 345 other than an order adding an entry to the list in Part 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 or to an order"
	Page 158, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—
	"(7A) Subsection (6) shall not apply to an order under section 351; but—
	(a) an order under section 351(1) which includes provision made by virtue of section 351(4) or by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 18 shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
	(b) an order under section 351(5) or (6) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 348, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 349 agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 378A:
	Page 217, line 16, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65)
	2A (1) The Gaming Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) For section 6(2) (premises licensed for the sale of alcohol) substitute—
	"(2) This section applies to any premises in England and Wales—
	(a) in respect of which a premises licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) has effect,
	(b) which contain a bar at which alcohol is served for consumption on the premises (without a requirement that alcohol is served only with food),
	(c) at a time when alcohol may be supplied in reliance on the premises licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003."
	(3) In section 12(3)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) the words from "and at that time" to the end of the paragraph shall cease to have effect,
	(b) in paragraph (b) the words from "and at that time" to the end of the paragraph shall cease to have effect, and
	(c) in paragraph (c) the words from "and at that time" to the end of the paragraph shall cease to have effect.
	(4) For section 20(5) substitute—
	"(5) Section 12(3) shall not apply in relation to any club to which this section applies."
	(5) In section 31—
	(a) in subsection (2)(c) for "ten" substitute "twenty",
	(b) for subsection (3E) substitute—
	"(3E) The initial amount must not exceed the higher of—
	(a) the highest coin value, or
	(b) the charge for playing a game once by means of the machine.", and.
	(c) in subsection (3G) for "the highest coin value" substitute "the higher of—
	(a) the highest coin value, or
	(b) the charge for playing a game once by means of the machine."
	(6) In section 51(3) after "regulations" insert "or an order".
	(7) In paragraph 10A(1) of Schedule 9, leave out "sub-paragraph (a) or".
	(8) After paragraph 10A of Schedule 9 insert—
	"10AA A permit in respect of premises to which sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule applies shall be subject to the conditions that a machine must—
	(a) be located on premises which contain a bar at which alcohol is served for consumption on the premises (without a requirement that alcohol is served only with food), and
	(b) be made available for use only at a time when alcohol may be supplied in reliance on the premises licence under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 379 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 380 to 382:
	Page 217, line 30, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
	5A In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24) (disqualifying offices) for "The Gaming Board for Great Britain." substitute "The Gambling Commission.""
	Page 219, line 32, at end insert—

"Private Security Industry Act 2001 (c. 12)

14A For paragraph 8(3)(e) of Schedule 2 to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (exceptions for certain premises) substitute—
	"(e) in relation to any occasion on which a casino premises licence or a bingo premises licence is in force in respect of the premises under the Gambling Act 2005 and the premises are being used in reliance on that licence; or""
	Page 220, line 12, at end insert—

"Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)

16A (1) The Licensing Act 2003 shall be amended as follows.
	(2) For section 175 (exemption for raffle, tombola, &c.) substitute—
	"175 EXEMPTION FOR INCIDENTAL NON-COMMERCIAL LOTTERY
	(1) The promotion of a lottery to which this section applies shall not constitute a licensable activity by reason only of one or more of the prizes in the lottery consisting of or including alcohol, provided that the alcohol is in a sealed container.
	(2) This section applies to an incidental non-commercial lottery (within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Gambling Act 2005)."
	(3) In paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 (provision of regulated entertainment) for "section 22 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (c. 32)" substitute "section 19(3) of the Gambling Act 2005".
	(4) In Schedule 4 (relevant offences) after paragraph 20 insert—
	"21 An offence under section 45 of the Gambling Act 2005 if the child or young person was invited, caused or permitted to gamble on premises in respect of which a premises licence under this Act had effect.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 17 [Repeals]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 383 and 384:
	Page 221, line 39, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "The Licensing (Scotland) Act1976 (c. 66) Section 133." 
		
	
	Page 222, leave out line 38.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 350 agreed to.
	Clause 351 [Commencement]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 384A to 385:
	Page 159, line 19, at end insert—
	"(h) include transitional provision modifying the application of a provision of this Act pending the commencement of, or pending the doing of anything under, a provision of another enactment."
	Page 159, line 20, at end insert—
	"(4) Without prejudice to the generality of section 348(1)(c) or of Schedule 18, an order under this section may—
	(a) make savings (with or without modification) or transitional provision in connection with Part 1 or 2 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 (c. 25) (sale of the Horserace Totalisator Board ("the Tote") and abolition of the horserace betting levy system);
	(b) modify a provision of this Act in its application in relation to a matter addressed by Part 1 or 2 of that Act or so as to reflect a provision of Part 1 or 2 of that Act;
	(c) modify a provision of Part 1 or 2 of that Act (including a provision which amends another enactment) so as to reflect a provision of this Act.
	(5) If the Secretary of State brings into force a repeal effected by this Act at a time when the appointed day for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act has not been appointed or has not arrived, he may by order—
	(a) save, with or without modification, a provision repealed by this Act in so far as it relates to the Tote;
	(b) make provision in connection with the Tote of a kind similar to provision made by a provision repealed by this Act;
	(c) modify a provision of this Act for a purpose connected with the Tote;
	(d) modify a provision of Part 1 of that Act (including a provision which amends another enactment) so as to reflect a provision of this Act.
	(6) If the Secretary of State wholly or partly brings into force the repeal by this Act of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c. 2) at a time when the provisions listed in section 15(1)(a) to (c) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 (horserace betting levy system) have not been entirely repealed by order under that section, he may by order—
	(a) save any of those provisions, with or without modification;
	(b) make provision of a kind similar to any of those provisions;
	(c) modify a provision of this Act for a purpose connected with a matter addressed by any of those provisions or by Part 2 of that Act;
	(d) modify a provision of Part 2 of that Act (including a provision which amends another enactment) so as to reflect a provision of this Act."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 351, as amended, agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 386 and 387:
	After Clause 351, insert the following new clause—
	"Vessels: territorial limitations
	(1) A person does not commit an offence under Part 3, 4, 10 or 11 of this Act if—
	(a) the conduct which would otherwise constitute the offence takes place on board a vessel (within the meaning of section 346(1)), and
	(b) the vessel is on a journey which has taken it or is intended to take it into international waters.
	(2) Subject to subsection (1) a provision of this Act which applies in relation to a thing done in Great Britain applies to that thing if done on or in the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain.
	(3) In this section—
	"international waters" means waters outside the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain, and
	"the territorial sea" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Territorial Sea Act 1987 (c. 49)."
	After Clause 351, insert the following new clause—
	"AIRCRAFT: TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS
	(1) A person does not commit an offence under Part 3, 4, 10 or 11 of this Act if the conduct which would otherwise constitute the offence takes place—
	(a) on board an aircraft, and
	(b) at a time when the aircraft is in international airspace."
	(2) In this section "international airspace" means airspace other than airspace above Great Britain or above the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Territorial Sea Act 1987 (c. 49))."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 18 agreed to.
	Clauses 352 and 353 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments; Report received.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Gambling Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with due congratulations to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005

Lord Davies of Oldham: had given notice of his intention to move, That the rules laid before the House on 14 March be approved [15th Report from the Merits Committee] [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that this business should be taken tomorrow.

Motion not moved.

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Disability Discrimination Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment and a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Inquiries Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Railways Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons reasons and amendments be printed.
	House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.